Priesthood Manual 2008 Joseph Smith

[juliann]

What in the world is wrong with you? How many people are looking for a reason to be repulsed? If she finds the matter creepy why don't you simply point out why you think it's a reasonable situation for a 19th century girl to find herself in instead of being so hysterically condescending?

Sorry but I have stopped sitting back while ignorant people hiding behind screennames malign women they know nothing about. I doubt this person has ever read one word from the 14 year old she so casually denigrates...and this 14 year old was one of the most prolific writers and defenders of Mormonism throughout her life. But why listen to her? She is just a woman! I find that disgusting and I find the need to fantasize about other people's sex lives out of line.

If you don't like differing opinions then stay off message boards. I have no obligation to sit back while Mormon women are dismissed as duped 14 year olds and I feel no obligation to be silent. Deal with it or put me on ignore but stop playing board nanny.

[juliann]

AKS, you mentioned "a reasonable situation for a 19th century girl ". Before we get all hot and bothered about Mormon situation....tell us what the American situation for a 19 century girl of the same class as these duped and dumb Mormon women.

No one ever wants to do that. Why? You don't know what the situation for women was? Then how do you expect to judge Mormons? Or is it that the situation for women in general at that time was so "creepy" that you lose traction when putting down Mormon women?

I'd really like to know.

[Pahoran]

I'll try, Wade

I have a daughter who is nearly 14. When I read the account of Joseph marrying Helen Mar Kimball, I put myself in that position. I have made the promises of consecration in the temple. And I have to admit that I would NOT be able to allow a 38 year old man take my daughter as a plural wife. This has caused great distress to me, because I am applying today's standards to Joseph, when this happened 150+ years ago. But, as I research further, I am now aware that this was not typical of Joseph's 19th century standards either. Girls didn't marry at 14 all the time, they married typically at 22 or so, and those who married younger than that married men their own age, not 20+ years older. It just sounds so creepy to me, I can't imagine it.

SD,

unfortunately you have been taken in by intentionally misused statistics. The study that reported the "22" age reported it as a "median" age at first marriage.

The median is simply the number that represents the middle of all the responses. That is, half of all the first-time brides were over 22, and half were under.

Do you think 30 is a dreadfully old age for a woman to get married? And 30 is only eight years older than 22. Guess what age is eight years younger than 22?

When we look at the output of the culture of the day, we find that both (1) young marriage, and (2) marriage to older men were considered quite acceptable. Jane Austen (yes I admit it, I'm a fan; so shoot me) has respectable characters expressing approval of marriages where either or both of these factors were in play, and in Sense and Sensibility 50% of her happy ending comes when she marries off Marianne Dashwood to Colonel Brandon, who is twice her age.

Then I get the argument that it was a 'platonic marriage' and was always intended to be that way. So I am now supposed to believe that ALL of Joseph's marriages to teenagers were platonic? That they were always meant to be that way?

I don't know that this is the case.

Helen never lived with Joseph, but stayed with her family. Later on in Utah, the same pattern happened: a teenage girl would be sealed to an older man but live with her family. Later, usually when she came of age, she would commence to live with him as a plural wife. Had Joseph lived, such would probably have been what happened with Helen.

I want to know what the official Church position is on this topic, and if I can't get my answers from my Bishop, I am prepared to search ALL Internet sources, ALL books on the subject, and every scrap of paper I can get my hands on to answer this conundrum.

SD, I don't believe there is such a thing as "the official Church position on this topic."

The way I look at it, Joseph had every intention of consummation with Helen, whether he got to do it before he was killed or not, remains largely debatable, and whether or not he was merely reserving her until she reached a more mature age, we will never know either. But I can't believe that he didn't have sex with ANY of his other wives, because this would not be fulfilling the same law that Abraham was given.

I'm not aware that anyone has actually claimed that here.

Brigham Young didn't apparently have any reservations about absorbing Joseph's polygamous wives and having children by them to fulfill the law, so why didn't Joseph do the same? And if he did, why don't we know about it before we are brought into the Church? It seems to me that we would be able to make a more informed decision on the character of Joseph Smith if we had all the background on him, and not just the shiny stuff.

The short answer is that the truth claims of the Church do not rest upon the character of Joseph or any other man.

The longer answer is that the data on Nauvoo polygamy is very fragmentary and incomplete compared to that on Utah polygamy. Conclusions drawn from fragmentary data are necessarily speculative and should always be tentative, which means that you would not really be all that much better informed afterwards than before.

Furthermore I find it highly significant that it is only from the Nauvoo period, with its incomplete records, that critics are able to adduce the deliciously juicy guesswork about Joseph's marriages. I personally believe that, if the records were more complete, we'd find the "goings on" no more scandalous than what happened in Utah.

(If I am coming off as angry, it's because I am )

And this is where a good sense of perspective helps.

What is the point of getting angry about something that happened long before you were born, among people you've never met?

For those who have patience, the study of history can be fascinating and very rewarding. For those who want "instant gratification" in the form of quick answers, it will always be frustrating. "Soundbite history" will always be bad history, no matter who does it or for what purpose.

So here is what you need to decide, SD: do you want to take on the very large task of studying Church history properly, as history should always be studied, by wading through all the mountains of "dull stuff" that is absolutely essential to a proper understanding of the subject, or do you want the 150-minute Hollywood version, which is really rather useless?

Sorry to dump this all on you Wade.

I've been following the thread as it has progressed, and it seems pretty evident that folks here want to argue more about whether I have a right to talk to the Bishop, or whether he has the right to tell me what the Church's position is, or tell me all of the resources I have had available to me throughout my whole life in the Church and that I should have done all this research before asking for any advice or input from the masses here on this board.

I doubt if I come back anytime soon. Thanks to all those who genuinely tried to help me. I'll just stick to real life situations from now on, and get off this board. It's not the right place to get personal help because you just get yelled at when you make threads personal.

Try to remember that there are many more out there just like me.

We'll keep that in mind.

Regards,

Pahoran

[AKS]

AKS, you mentioned "a reasonable situation for a 19th century girl ". Before we get all hot and bothered about Mormon situation....tell us what the American situation for a 19 century girl of the same class as these duped and dumb Mormon women.

No one ever wants to do that. Why? You don't know what the situation for women was? Then how do you expect to judge Mormons? Or is it that the situation for women in general at that time was so "creepy" that you lose traction when putting down Mormon women?

I'd really like to know.

It wasn't your opinion that bothered me, it was your mock indignation and condescending tone. Surely you could have made your points without all the drama.

All personal and no substance and third strike and youre out. ~ Mods

[LifeOnaPlate]

It wasn't your opinion that bothered me, it was your mock indignation and condescending tone. Surely you could have made your points without all the drama.

All personal and no substance and third strike and youre out. ~ Mods

Actually, she's probably just tired of ethnocentristic viewpoint, when people are using Fanny as an argument against Smith while at the same time not giving a fig for her at all; she is simply a tool to be used to attack the church rather than a real person. And that is annoying.

[juliann]

It amazes me how invisible these women become to people who prefer to nurture their never ending disgust than show them any respect. They cease being individuals. They cease having a voice. They become "14 year olds" in perpetuity. Those who moan the loudest about their "rights" refuse to give them any.

I"m fed up with it. It almost seems like historical mysogyny. And I notice that no one wants to talk about the plight of all women of that class who lived in that era. The silence is deafening. The sudden complete lack of concern is telling.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It amazes me how invisible these women become to people who prefer to nurture their never ending disgust than show them any respect. They cease being individuals. They cease having a voice. They become "14 year olds" in perpetuity. Those who moan the loudest about their "rights" refuse to give them any.

I"m fed up with it. It almost seems like historical mysogyny. And I notice that no one wants to talk about the plight of all women of that class who lived in that era. The silence is deafening. The sudden complete lack of concern is telling.

It's merely a weapon against the Church, not a call for social change or justice.

[Teancum]

This is not necessarily true. The restoration has very little to do with the 'bad' side of Joseph Smith. It has everything to do with whether or not the story is true or false. The bad side of JS has very little to do with it. Every human being has bad sides to his or her character. JS was no exception to this rule. I don' know anyone who believes that Joseph Smith was perfect.

As noted I do not expect perfection. But I do think that when one says they saw God and Jesus and had other miraculous visions and claims that this generation has God's word through him his character and behavior is the only thing we have to know whether we can trust his claims or not. David was chosen by God but when he sinned he fell and lost that chosen spot. His character and choices impacted how God viewed and used him.

So here we have Joseph who says I speak for God. Trust me. How can i decide to trust him? Does what he does have any bearing on whether we can trust him?

[juliann]

As noted I do not expect perfection. But I do think that when one says they saw God and Jesus and had other miraculous visions and claims that this generation has God's word through him his character and behavior is the only thing we have to know whether we can trust his claims or not.

You can't be serious. You are speaking of a church that has stood firm behind personal revelation and you are putting other people you have not even met under a magifying glass to make decisions? What in the world do you expect to come up with when you compare a person to your idea of God?

[Teancum]

However, I don't think it reasonable for you to expect the Church and its instructional designers to tailor their curriculum based on your's and other people's point of view rather than their own. Do You?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I understand your point better now. I guess the quesiton then is why does the Church emphasize what seems to be to be only he positive aspects and decide that is what is needed for salvation and why do thye choose this approach. What do you think?

My approach is that openess and more disclosure is only fair and better especially when the Church asks us to commit so much time and money and effort to the organization. We may disagree then as to what people need to know and what they don't need to know before they commit. I think more is better. But I certainly do not run the Church.

[juliann]

It's merely a weapon against the Church, not a call for social change or justice.

So the standard of "truth" for these people seems to be themselves. If they can find or manufacture even one reason to consider a person less than themselves they don't have to think about any magnificant thing they said or did or experienced.

[Teancum]

However, I don't think it reasonable for you to expect the Church and its instructional designers to tailor their curriculum based on your's and other people's point of view rather than their own. Do You?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I understand your point better now. I guess the quesiton then is why does the Church emphasize what seems to be to be only he positive aspects and decide that is what is needed for salvation and why do thye choose this approach. What do you think?

My approach is that openess and more disclosure is only fair and better especially when the Church asks us to commit so much time and money and effort to the organization. We may disagree then as to what people need to know and what they don't need to know before they commit. I think more is better. But I certainly do not run the Church.

[Teancum]

I don't think he was perfect. But I don't see him as the villain that the Joseph-bashers make him out to be. No one possesses all the pertinent facts regarding his life and circumstances, though the critics act like they do.

On his worst day, Joseph was a far better man than his most strident critics, now or in the past.

I hope I am not coming across as a strident critic. Joseph has always been a large figure and even a bit of a hero in my life. As I have come to know some what I think are his mistakes and character flaws I have been disappointed and saddened. I still hold him in fairly high regards though he is not what he once was to me.

[juliann]

Interesting. The more I have learned about him...and especially after reading some of Rough Stone Rolling...it made me realize that he accomplished what he did without the beneift of being flawless. It was not until then that I began to hold the man in awe. Why admire someone who never had to do anything against their nature or anytihng that was difficult to them? We had a bit of debate in GD one Sunday....some wanted to insist that Peter wasn't "afraid" and thus didn't really "deny" Jesus. At that point he simply becomes a cartoon superhero and of little practical use to me as an example. I don't relate to Superman on any level.

[Daniel Peterson]

I agree. And, as I understand it, that's Richard Bushman's own attitude, as well.

Joseph Smith as inspired human prophet is much more interesting and inspiring to me than Joseph Smith as flawless String Puppet of God, effortlessly and always confidently omniscient.

[John Williams]

Interesting. The more I have learned about him...and especially after reading some of Rough Stone Rolling...it made me realize that he accomplished what he did without the beneift of being flawless. It was not until then that I began to hold the man in awe. Why admire someone who never had to do anything against their nature or anytihng that was difficult to them? We had a bit of debate in GD one Sunday....some wanted to insist that Peter wasn't "afraid" and thus didn't really "deny" Jesus. At that point he simply becomes a cartoon superhero and of little practical use to me as an example. I don't relate to Superman on any level.

That was an excellent post and one I completely relate to. If Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, it's really wondrous that God could use a flawed human to fulfill his works. I remember reading Wilford Woodruff's having said that he was grateful to see Joseph's flaws, as he felt like if God could use such an imperfect man to build His kingdom, there was hope for Wilford Woodruff. Heck, maybe there's even hope for people like you and me.

Thanks for posting that.

[Teancum]

Your statement presumes that the "more comprehensive version of the Sunday School story" carries negative implications.

That is not necessarily so.

Speaking personally: I read a great deal of Church history, and have been doing so for roughly forty years. My convictions are at least as strong as they have ever been.

Richard Bushman, who has actually written some of the finest works ever published on Mormon history, has recently commented, in print, that his confidence in Joseph Smith was stronger at the end of writing Joseph's biography than it was when the process of writing Rough Stone Rolling began.

My reasonably well-informed impression is that the large majority of Latter-day Saint professional historians who work in the field of Mormon history are believers.

Many years ago, while a graduate student in California, I heard the late Stanley Kimball (an LDS historian -- he actually published on both Mormon and European history -- who taught at Southern Illinois University) speak to a small group about what he termed "the three levels of Mormon history."

He called the first level "Level A." This, he said, was the Junior Sunday School version of Church history, in which Mormons always wear the white hats, nobody disagrees, and all is unambiguously clear.

"Level B," he said, was the anti-Mormon version of Church history -- a kind of mirror image of Level A. On Level B, everything that you thought was good and true is actually false and bad. The Mormons (or, at least, their leaders) always wear black hats, and, to the extent that everything is unambiguously clear, Mormonism is unambiguously fraudulent, bogus, deceptive, and evil.

The Church, he said, tends to teach Level A history. The trouble is that, like someone who has been kept in a germ-free environment and is then exposed to an infectious disease, a person on Level A who is exposed to any of the problems that are the fodder for Level B will have little resistance and will be likely to fall.

The only hope in such a case, he said, is to press on to what he termed "Level C," which is a version of Church history that remains affirmative but takes into account any legitimate points from Level B. Those on Level C are largely impervious to infection from Level B. Level B problems simply don't impress them.

He said that he and his fellow historians operate on Level C, and that, on the whole, that's where he (as a professional historian) would prefer members to be. He was deeply convinced, he said, that Level C was essentially like Level A, except that it is more nuanced and somewhat more ambiguous. (He emphatically denied that Level A is "false," or that the Church was "lying" in teaching it.) He acknowledged, though, that, were he himself a high-ranking Church leader, he would be hesitant to take the membership as a whole to Level C by means of Church curriculum and instruction, for the obvious reason that getting people from Level A to Level C entails at least some exposure to some of the elements of Level B, and that such exposure will unavoidably lead some to lose their testimonies. Still, he felt that those who make it through to Level C are more stable and resilient in their faith than those who remain on Level A.

I agree with him. I thought it a wise and perceptive talk, even though, had I myself given it, I would have spoken in Hegelian terms (of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis) rather than in terms of Levels A, B, and C.

Very interesting.

A couple of points.

While Bushman is stronger about Joseph after his bio he has said that he is understanding of members that read more what you termed as level C history become upset, feel things were hidden pr have a crisis of faith and that something ought to be done about it. I heard this in his interviews with John Dehlin.

I like the level A, B, C comparison. I do not think level A is a lie or false. It is selective. On another post I noted to you that I thought the new JS film portrayed a one dimensional Joseph Smith. You stated if I recall that nothing in the film was not historically accurate. I agree. But it was level A.

And I agree that going from A to C will cause some to lose testimonies and that is why the Church leadership choses to not do it. But essentially that is happening now. Members are finding level C and often they get it through and from level B sources. And many lose their testimony and exit. You I am sure are keenly aware that this is happening maybe more now then it even has due to the accessibility of level B and C.

So for the Church leaders the question is do they continue on level A and lose members that become dissilluisioned when they go to level B and C on their own or do they find a way to teach level C in a more user friendly way, and still lose some in the process but maybe fewer?

Of course it may not be fewer. For the leadership I guess it is which approach causes the least amount of losses. It seems they currently are sticking with the level A approach.

[MormonMason]

I understand your point better now. I guess the quesiton then is why does the Church emphasize what seems to be to be only he positive aspects and decide that is what is needed for salvation and why do thye choose this approach. What do you think?

...

Should not we all try to find the best in all people? If the Church teaches us to do this why should the Church not also do as we are taught by the Church?

[Hammer]

Should not we all try to find the best in all people? If the Church teaches us to do this why should the Church not also do as we are taught by the Church?

A good idea, but you realize that it wouldn't allow the countermos to accomplish their life long ambition, don't you?

[wenglund]

I'll try, Wade

I have a daughter who is nearly 14. When I read the account of Joseph marrying Helen Mar Kimball, I put myself in that position. I have made the promises of consecration in the temple. And I have to admit that I would NOT be able to allow a 38 year old man take my daughter as a plural wife. This has caused great distress to me, because I am applying today's standards to Joseph, when this happened 150+ years ago. But, as I research further, I am now aware that this was not typical of Joseph's 19th century standards either. Girls didn't marry at 14 all the time, they married typically at 22 or so, and those who married younger than that married men their own age, not 20+ years older. It just sounds so creepy to me, I can't imagine it.

Then I get the argument that it was a 'platonic marriage' and was always intended to be that way. So I am now supposed to believe that ALL of Joseph's marriages to teenagers were platonic? That they were always meant to be that way? Then D&C 132 contradicts all of that in verse 37:

"Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law..."

Joseph was commanded to bring back polygamy as a continuation of this law, and just how was he going to fulfill it without having sex with his polygamous wives? What would be the point, if not to bring forth seed, like Abraham did?

I want to know what the official Church position is on this topic, and if I can't get my answers from my Bishop, I am prepared to search ALL Internet sources, ALL books on the subject, and every scrap of paper I can get my hands on to answer this conundrum.

The way I look at it, Joseph had every intention of consummation with Helen, whether he got to do it before he was killed or not, remains largely debatable, and whether or not he was merely reserving her until she reached a more mature age, we will never know either. But I can't believe that he didn't have sex with ANY of his other wives, because this would not be fulfilling the same law that Abraham was given. Brigham Young didn't apparently have any reservations about absorbing Joseph's polygamous wives and having children by them to fulfill the law, so why didn't Joseph do the same? And if he did, why don't we know about it before we are brought into the Church? It seems to me that we would be able to make a more informed decision on the character of Joseph Smith if we had all the background on him, and not just the shiny stuff.

(If I am coming off as angry, it's because I am )

Sorry to dump this all on you Wade.

I've been following the thread as it has progressed, and it seems pretty evident that folks here want to argue more about whether I have a right to talk to the Bishop, or whether he has the right to tell me what the Church's position is, or tell me all of the resources I have had available to me throughout my whole life in the Church and that I should have done all this research before asking for any advice or input from the masses here on this board.

I doubt if I come back anytime soon. Thanks to all those who genuinely tried to help me. I'll just stick to real life situations from now on, and get off this board. It's not the right place to get personal help because you just get yelled at when you make threads personal.

Try to remember that there are many more out there just like me.

Would it surprise you to learn that I think your emotional reaction is perfectly reasonable given the way you have concidered this issue, particularly in light of your own 14-year-old daughter? I think most any parent today would recoil at the thought of their 14-year-old getting married and having sexual relations regardless who it was with.

Let's say, though, that your daughter came to you this morning and said that an angel had appeared to her last night and told her to go to the temple and be sealed to Joseph Smith, and after she said that, you receive a spiritual witness of the truth of what she said. Would that creep you out?

Or, suppose your 14-year-old daughter were to tell you that she had been espoused to a man named Joseph, and that last night the angel Gabrial appeared to her and told her: "thou hast found favour with God. Thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bring forth a son, and his name shall be called JESUS." Would that creep you out?

I ask because I wonder if, since your faith has apparently been shaken upon learning that Joseph Smith was sealed to a 14-year-old girl, how much more it would be shaken were you to learn that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was that same age or younger when she was espoused to Joseph and conceived the Savior?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[why me]

As noted I do not expect perfection. But I do think that when one says they saw God and Jesus and had other miraculous visions and claims that this generation has God's word through him his character and behavior is the only thing we have to know whether we can trust his claims or not. David was chosen by God but when he sinned he fell and lost that chosen spot. His character and choices impacted how God viewed and used him.

So here we have Joseph who says I speak for God. Trust me. How can i decide to trust him? Does what he does have any bearing on whether we can trust him?

But what is amazing is that a couple of these visions were shared with others up close and personal. Oliver comes to mind. Joseph's behavior was a turn off for some. But this turn off had more to do with JS's human side. At times he did not act like a prophet. During his time, some members had an impression just how a prophet should act and he missed the mark. JS was very much a human being. He was a frontier man, a farmer, and rough around the edges. Lets face it, when a person thinks of a prophet, they see a mystic, a contemplative soul in constant prayer. With JS, they got something else. The got a man who enjoyed frontier wrestling.

To tell you the truth, I think that if JS were alive today, he would tell church members to live life and enjoy life and to keep god close to heart and soul.

[Teancum]

You can't be serious. You are speaking of a church that has stood firm behind personal revelation and you are putting other people you have not even met under a magifying glass to make decisions? What in the world do you expect to come up with when you compare a person to your idea of God?

Personal revelation is subjective. Other people of other faiths believe the spirit has told them the Joseph was a false prophet.

Yes Juliann, I am serious as a heart attack. Why so incredulous? If you were to invest a large sum of money in a business would you be more apt to trust Ken Lay or Mitt Romney and why? Clearly what you know about heir character bears something relevance. You know Ken Lay was a crook that took down an entire corporation. You know the Mitt Romney has as strong reputation and is successful in business.

As for my idea of God I have no idea what you are ranting about.

[why me]

You can continue in your overly hostile approach if you wish. I see no difference between how you act now and how you have acted for quite some time. Any person questioning this or other issues is disingenuous in your mind and you treat them shabbily when they really do seem to be sincere. Thus my suggestion that SD not look for answers or support from this board. Mostly she would just be treated shabbily, with hostility and sneered at. This behavior by youis prime example.

But keep it up. You have quite the reputation in the internet LDS message board community. Though it is not one I would want.

Juliann has a good point. Let Helen speak for herself is the best advice that one can give to SD. Helen supported polygamy. She recognized it as god's will. She certainly did not feel sorry for herself. Lucy Walker was another case who supported polygamy after refusing JS. One night after prayer she had such a heavenly visitation that she could not deny the practice of plural marriage and she was sealed to JS with her brother as witness. This scotch woman had a strong voice when she lived. She was no ******cat but a strong willed scotch woman.

When critics speak of such women, they do seem to look down on these women's voices. The critics neuter them.

[why me]

Personal revelation is subjective. Other people of other faiths believe the spirit has told them the Joseph was a false prophet.

I know of two faiths in christianity that claim heavenly visitations. The lds and the catholic church. I know of no protestant faith that claims such a thing. This is quite a claim and so, the lds claims have not been proven false and likewise for the sanctioned catholic visitations of the blessed virgin. Strange, isn't? Perhaps god is close to both faiths that claim truth.

[Teancum]

Juliann has a good point. Let Helen speak for herself is the best advice that one can give to SD. Helen supported polygamy. She recognized it as god's will. She certainly did not feel sorry for herself. Lucy Walker was another case who supported polygamy after refusing JS. One night after prayer she had such a heavenly visitation that she could not deny the practice of plural marriage and she was sealed to JS with her brother as witness. This scotch woman had a strong voice when she lived. She was no ******cat but a strong willed scotch woman.

When critics speak of such women, they do seem to look down on these women's voices. The critics neuter them.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/26-HelenMarKimball.htm

In 1843 Apostle Heber C. Kimball had an important talk with his only daughter, fourteen-year-old Helen Mar. She wrote: â??Without any preliminaries [my Father] asked me if I would believe him if he told me that it was right for married men to take other wives...The first impulse was anger...my sensibilities were painfully touched. I felt such a sense of personal injury and displeasure; for to mention such a thing to me I thought altogether unworthy of my father, and as quick as he spoke, I replied to him, short and emphatically, â??No I wouldnâ??t!â??...This was the first time that I ever openly manifested anger towards him...Then he commenced talking seriously and reasoned and explained the principle, and why it was again to be established upon the earth. [This] had a similar effect to a sudden shock of a small earthquake.â?

Then father â??asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph...[and] left me to reflect upon it for the next twenty-four hours...I was sceptical-one minute believed, then doubted. I thought of the love and tenderness that he felt for his only daughter, and I knew that he would not cast her off, and this was the only convincing proof that I had of its being right. I knew that he loved me too well to teach me anything that was not strictly pure, virtuous and exalting in its tendencies; and no one else could have influenced me at that time or brought me to accept of a doctrine so utterly repugnant and so contrary to all of our former ideas and traditions.â? Unknown to Helen Mar, Heber and Joseph had already discussed the prospect of Helen Mar becoming one of Josephâ??s wives. Heber now sought her agreement. Helen recalls, â??Having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophetâ??s own mouth. My father had but one Ewe Lamb, but willingly laid her upon the alterâ?

The next morning Joseph visited the Kimball home. "[He explained] the principle of Celestial marrage...After which he said to me, â??If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your fatherâ??s household & all of your kindred.[â??] This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. None but God & his angels could see my motherâ??s bleeding heart-when Joseph asked her if she was willing...She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older & who better understood the step they were taking, & to see her child, who had scarcely seen her fifteenth summer, following in the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come...; but it was all hidden from me.â? Helenâ??s mother reluctantly agreed and in May of 1843, Helen married Joseph Smith.

During the winter of 1843-44, there were weekly parties at Joseph Smithâ??s Mansion House. Many of Helenâ??s friends attended, as well as her sixteen-year-old brother William. Disappointed, Helen wrote, â??my father had been warned by the Prophet to keep his daughter away...I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow [William] to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with others of my companions, and fettered me down, for no girl loved dancing better than I did...and like a wild bird I longed for the freedom that was denied me; and thought myself an abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur.â?

In June 1844, Heber was away from home on a mission and wrote to Helen: â??MY DEAR DAUGHTER-...be obedient to the counsel you have given to you...If you should be tempted, or having feelings in your heart, tell them to no one but your father and mother; if you do, you will be betrayed and exposed...You are blessed, but you know it not. You have done that which will be for your everlasting good for this world and that which is to come. I will admit there is not much pleasure in this world...Be true to the covenants that you have made...Be a good girl;...your affectionate father.â? A few weeks later Joseph Smith was killed in Carthage. After one year of marriage, Helen was a widow.

Helenâ??s father would eventually marry thirty-nine wives. She wrote, â??I had, in hours of temptation when seeing the trials of my mother, felt to rebel. I hated polygamy in my heart.â? Helen later fell victim to a prolonged illness: â??For three months I lay a portion of the time like one dead...I tasted of the punishment which is prepared for those who reject any of the principles of this Gospel.â? Eventually she was converted to polygamy and recovered from her illness, â??I fasted for one week, and every day I gained until I had won the victory...I learned that plural marriage is a celestial principle, and saw... the necessity of obedience to those who hold the priesthood, and the danger of rebelling against or speaking lightly of the Lordâ??s annointedâ?. Helen later summarized her experience with plural marriage in a poem:

I thought through this life my time will be my own

The step I now am takingâ??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 thretâ??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 slandâ??rous tongues were hurled,

Untutorâ??d heart in thy genâ??rous sacrafise,

Thou didsâ??t not weigh the cost nor know the bitter price;

Thy happy dreams all oâ??er thouâ??st doomâ??d also to be

Barâ??d out from social scenes by this thy destiny,

And oâ??er thy sadâ??nd memâ??ries of sweet departed joys

Thy sickenâ??d heart will brood and imagine future woes,

And like a fetterâ??d bird with wild and longing heart,

Thouâ??lt dayly pine for freedom and murmor at thy lot;

But couldâ??st thou see the future & view that glorious crown,

Awaiting you in Heaven you would not weep nor mourn.

Pure and exalted was thy fatherâ??s aim, he saw

A glory in obeying this high celestial law,

For to thousands whoâ??ve died without the light

I will bring eternal joy & make thy crown more bright.

Iâ??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 fatherâ??s mouth,

I should neâ??r have received it as Godâ??s sacred truth.

Helen Mar Kimball