Priesthood Manual 2008 Joseph Smith

[LifeOnaPlate]

I wish we had such a candid look into Abraham's heart when he was asked to sacrifice Isaac, or a candid look at Hagar when she was sent off with her son.

[why me]

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?.

And here is a portion of what Helen cautioned many years later in 'Life Incidents':

LIFE INCIDENTS

By Helen Mar Kimball Whitney

The scenes which are familiar to the Latter-day Saints of an earlier day, are but little known to those who have since been gathered from the different nations, nor to those who have grown up in the peaceful valleys of the Rocky Mountains. Until within a few years, the world knew nothing of our true history. Falsehoods were manufactured and sent out to serve the purposes of our enemies, and apostates have been their willing tools. The bitter prejudices felt by the outside world makes it almost an impossibility for them to believe or become acquainted with our faith and principles; but the history of this people is always interesting to the Latter-day Saints, and incidents of our travels and experience are calculated to benefit the young and rising generation. The spirit of unbelief which has crept into our midst is lamentable, and a stupor seems to have come over a portion of this people, who I sometimes fear, will need the judgments of God to awaken them from its influence, and we know that they are sure to come upon the slothful and disobedient, if they do not repent.

More about Helen later. I think all latter day saints should read her 'Life Incidents'.

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/HWhitney.html

[wenglund]

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?

As previously intimated, I believe the content of the lessons should be objective driven, and since the objective is salvation (at least in the minds of the Church given its three-fold mission), and given the constraints on time and other resources, it would make sense that the content would include only those aspects of Church history that best promote salvation--i.e. inspiring acounts in history, which one would expect would tend to be positive in nature.

However, there are negative aspects of Church history which lend themselves well to promoting salvation. In fact, the scriptures are filled with accounts of where believers have been disobedience to the will of God. After reading these acounts, members today may be inspired to not make the same mistakes so as to avoid the damning consequence, and/or they may be inspired by how some people in the past were able to rise above their temptation and sin and grow unto righteousness.

Some of these negative, though inspiring, historical accounts do find their way into Church lessons--that is when they are deemed best for fascilitating growth unto salvation.

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.

I think openess and more disclosure are worthy ideals.

However, given the reality of time and resource constraints, there are unavoidable limits of practicality in reasonably meeting that ideal. As such, I believe one would be wise to carefully choose when, where, how, and to what level, and about what content, to disclose more and be "open" about.

Also, as I understand things, that ideal is a means to an end, and not an end itself. As such, it should be driven by the end objective, rather than the other way around. In other words, the ideal should be met to the extent that the end objective warrants it.

In other words, as I see things (and I suspect the Church sees it this way as well), from a reasonable and practical standpoint, and in terms of the ideal being driven by the objective, the missionary, Sunday School, Priesthood/Relief Society, and seminary lessons should be open and disclose Church history to the extent that such openness and disclosure facilitates the end objective: growth of members unto salvation. Merely disclosing "troublesome history" for the sake of openness and more disclosure, would be counterproductive, unwise, and a poor use of constrained time and other resources.

Put another way, as Elder Oaks may suggest, openess and more disclosure may be a good thing, but unlimited and indiscriminate openness and disclosure may not be the best or better thing. ;-)

However, I can respect that for those whose end objective is not salvation, but indiscriminate openness and more disclosure, they may see things quite differently. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[why me]

Helen from the grave speaking to apostates and ex and postmormons today:

Having continued longer than I anticipated I shall now close "Life Incidents," but not before expressing the gratitude I feel for the privilege of belonging to the unpopular sect called "Mormons." I never saw the time that I felt more joyful and more willing to bear the stigmas which are heaped upon us than I am today. Jesus and his apostles and saints were also hated, and they suffered a great deal more than the Latter-day Saints, and were finally destroyed from off the earth, but we have no fears of a similar fate, for we know that God has set his hand for the second time and that He will live to fulfil his purposes, and though hundreds may apostatize and join our enemies, they will accomplish nothing but their own ruin for apostates are looked down upon by the Gentiles and despised as traitors always are. The wicked only use them as tools to overthrow the work of the Almighty. It is only those who are weak in the faith that fear and tremble. "The wicked flee when no man pursueth," and they judge the Latter-day Saints by themselves. The bitterness that is manifested by the world towards this people is the greatest proof to me that this is the true gospel of Jesus Christ. If my homely description of scenes and incidents among the Saints prove beneficial to others, I will feel amply rewarded and can say as the poet, "If I one soul improve I have not lived in vain."

Every time I see a critic put forth the name of Helen Mar Kimball, I think of her words that I posted in two replies. Now I know that Teancum is not a critic...but he or she should know who Helen was in her own words. Her words speak to us today as we confront the modern day apostates who try to lead people away from the lds church under the same pretense that were around during Helen's time.

As Juliann said, these women had strong voices. Let them be heard.

[Teancum]

Helen from the grave speaking to apostates and ex and postmormons today:

Having continued longer than I anticipated I shall now close "Life Incidents," but not before expressing the gratitude I feel for the privilege of belonging to the unpopular sect called "Mormons." I never saw the time that I felt more joyful and more willing to bear the stigmas which are heaped upon us than I am today. Jesus and his apostles and saints were also hated, and they suffered a great deal more than the Latter-day Saints, and were finally destroyed from off the earth, but we have no fears of a similar fate, for we know that God has set his hand for the second time and that He will live to fulfil his purposes, and though hundreds may apostatize and join our enemies, they will accomplish nothing but their own ruin for apostates are looked down upon by the Gentiles and despised as traitors always are. The wicked only use them as tools to overthrow the work of the Almighty. It is only those who are weak in the faith that fear and tremble. "The wicked flee when no man pursueth," and they judge the Latter-day Saints by themselves. The bitterness that is manifested by the world towards this people is the greatest proof to me that this is the true gospel of Jesus Christ. If my homely description of scenes and incidents among the Saints prove beneficial to others, I will feel amply rewarded and can say as the poet, "If I one soul improve I have not lived in vain."

Every time I see a critic put forth the name of Helen Mar Kimball, I think of her words that I posted in two replies. Now I know that Teancum is not a critic...but he or she should know who Helen was in her own words. Her words speak to us today as we confront the modern day apostates who try to lead people away from the lds church under the same pretense that were around during Helen's time.

As Juliann said, these women had strong voices. Let them be heard.

So Why me what say you about the words of Helen that I provided above?

[why me]

So Why me what say you about the words of Helen that I provided above?

As you must know a human life is a human life. We go through stages of development. I don't think that we can take words, post them and say that these words reflect a life. We all say things at different stages of development and Helen was no different. But to put a life in perspective is quite different. Helen was a very faithful member of the lds church. And she was one of the first apologists, as her words that I selected demonstrated.

Critics love Helen but for all the wrong reasons. She was a remarkable women who appreciated lds women as her Life Incidents demonstrates. But she was also faithful and a commited lds women and member. And at the end of the day that is important when we consider helen. She also defended polygamy.

[Teancum]

As you must know a human life is a human life. We go through stages of development. I don't think that we can take words, post them and say that these words reflect a life. We all say things at different stages of development and Helen was no different. But to put a life in perspective is quite different. Helen was a very faithful member of the lds church. And she was one of the first apologists, as her words that I selected demonstrated.

Critics love Helen but for all the wrong reasons. She was a remarkable women who appreciated lds women as her Life Incidents demonstrates. But she was also faithful and a commited lds women and member. And at the end of the day that is important when we consider helen. She also defended polygamy.

Well I am sure I will be criticized for assuming any thing so I will qualify by stating what I am about to say could be wrong.

But after many years of polygamy Helen had a lot vested into it. It makes sense that she would defend it. Sure we all change through out life. But her words about how she felt about her plural marriage as a young women, related when she was an adult certainly gives us insight that it was not a happy thing.

It also. I believe, reflects poorly on Joseph in that he made a promise that was a prime example of putting a girl whom looked to him as a prophet under great duress.

[why me]

Well I am sure I will be criticized for assuming any thing so I will qualify by stating what I am about to say could be wrong.

But after many years of polygamy Helen had a lot vested into it. It makes sense that she would defend it. Sure we all change through out life. But her words about how she felt about her plural marriage as a young women, related when she was an adult certainly gives us insight that it was not a happy thing.

It also. I believe, reflects poorly on Joseph in that he made a promise that was a prime example of putting a girl whom looked to him as a prophet under great duress.

Maybe. But if one reads her life they will find a woman comfortable in her faith. She does not come across as a woman who writes from investment. She defended the faith, addressed the apostates in strong words and was faithful. You must understand that her name was also used by apostates in her time. Do I have proof of this? No. But her take on it as I posted seems to imply so.

I have heard about this investment angle on exmo boards. But they ignore the words that I have posted because such words would speak closely to their exmormon life.

[why me]

Thanks for posting that.

I can understand your feelings about Helen and the pressure that she was put under. But I try to put it all in perspective. What I have are her words from 'wivesofjosephsmith' website as posted by teancum. But what is lacking is context and actions that were occuring at that time. I don't think that it was so simple.

When one reads her reflections, one reads the words of a mature woman who seems blessed in the lds faith. Her life seems full and peaceful. And she seems to have no regrets. Her happiness comes through in her reflections and her distaste for apostacy and admiration for lds women is very strong and powerful.

[juliann]

What I have are her words from 'wivesofjosephsmith' website as posted by Teancum

We have her own words, we have books about her...and what is the favored source of those who can't tolerate letting her speak for herself? A disgraceful website that cherry picks through it all. This website is not footnoted and uses ellipses very liberally. But...she is just a dead and dumb Mormon woman. A few chopped up and carefully arranged paragraphs from the copious material she left are adequate.

[John Williams]

We have her own words, we have books about her...and what is the favored source of those who can't tolerate letting her speak for herself? A disgraceful website that cherry picks through it all. This website is not footnoted and uses ellipses very liberally. But...she is just a dead and dumb Mormon woman. A few chopped up and carefully arranged paragraphs from the copious material she left are adequate.

Yes, Helen was a lot more complex than that website lets on (who runs that, anyway?). I keep coming back to wondering what Helen's opinion has to do with the rightness of Joseph's behavior. Just because the object of a particular act is OK with that act, it doesn't mean the act itself is right, does it? My dad's stepfather, who lived on Social Security, gave literally thousands of dollars to a particular television ministry whose leaders ended up in jail for fraud. He was always adamant that giving money to these hucksters was a commandment of God. Does that justify the men who took his money?

[wenglund]

I think Dr Peterson and Wade are the the only one who offered genuine help.

I don't know if it is fair to judge someone's genuiness based on their approach. I have always been completely genuine in my desire to be of help, though as you note below, my approach has changed significantly over the years.

As a friendly suggestion you really should modify your approach. Your reputation is negative among many other boards and it reflects bacly on the apologetic community. I am not trying to be harsh. Another person, Wade, has gone to great lengths to modify his approach and is well thought of among many who still may disagree with him

Do what you will. This is meant with the best of intentions.

That was kind of you to say about me, and I don't doubt your intentions in wanting to help Juliann.

However, from what I have learned over the years, I am most effective in helping others when I avoid judging and accusing them (particularly in the process of decrying judgementalism, accusations, and harshness), and focus instead on describing what may work best for me and perhaps them--realizing, of course, that the same approach doesn't always work best in all situations and with all people. There are times when reproving betimes sharply, straight-talk, and "telling it like it is" approaches are more effective than say my current approach. (In my experience as a behavioralist I have found that speaking kindly and respectfully to various children, will act as positive reinforcement for good behavior in one child, while acting as positive reinforcement of negitive behavior in another child.) For that reason, I am fine with leaving to each adult here their own, trusting that each will determine for themselves what works best and when. I also think there may be advantages to exposing people to multiple and differing approaches.

At least that is how I see it...for whatever that may be worth. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Yes, Helen was a lot more complex than that website lets on (who runs that, anyway?). I keep coming back to wondering what Helen's opinion has to do with the rightness of Joseph's behavior. Just because the object of a particular act is OK with that act, it doesn't mean the act itself is right, does it? My dad's stepfather, who lived on Social Security, gave literally thousands of dollars to a particular television ministry whose leaders ended up in jail for fraud. He was always adamant that giving money to these hucksters was a commandment of God. Does that justify the men who took his money?

You raise an intersting question. What do you believe should be the basis for determing if an act itself is "right" if not the sentiments of those consenting to the act, particularly in cases such as Helen's where the "rightness" may be somewhat subjective?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[John Williams]

You raise an intersting question. What do you believe should be the basis for determing if an act itself is "right", if not the sentiments of those consenting to the act, particularly in cases such as this where the "rightness" may be somewhat subjective?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, how do we determine if anything is right or wrong? If my grandpa consented to the act of sending thousands of dollars to shysters, does his sentiment make it right or wrong, or does it matter? Is preying on an old man right because he consented to it?

[wenglund]

Wade, how do we determine if anything is right or wrong? If my grandpa consented to the act of sending thousands of dollars to shysters, does his sentiment make it right or wrong, or does it matter? Is preying on an old man right because he consented to it?

I am not sure how my answering these questions will answer the question I posed to you, particularly when your questions may presuppose things which may be open to debate.

What may appear to you and me to be "preying" and "shyster-like", may not be thought the same by an old man--irrespective of how things may eventually turn out. I fact, what's to say that even if it appeared that same way to the old man, that he could still determine for himself that it is "right" for him (for reasons of his own) to send them the money. Who, then, are we to determine "rightness" for him and how he may chose to donate his money?

I am not looking so much for a direct answer to this last question, but I wouldn't mind a direct answer to the question in my previous post--that is, when you have the time and opportunity to answer it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[John Williams]

I am not sure how my answering these questions will answer the question I posed to you, particularly when your questions may presuppose things which may be open to debate.

What may appear to you and me to be "preying" and "shyster-like", may not be thought the same by an old man--irrespective of how things may eventually turn out. I fact, what's to say that even if it appeared that same way to the old man, that he could still determine for himself that it is "right" for him (for reasons of his own) to send them the money. Who, then, are we to determine "rightness" for him and how he may chose to donate his money?

I am not looking so much for a direct answer to this last question, but I wouldn't mind a direct answer to the question in my previous post--that is, when you have the time and opportunity to answer it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The way I look at it with my grandfather is simple. He sent them so much money that he went hungry many times. When it negatively impacted his health and welfare, it became wrong, no matter how much he consented to it. How anyone could consider such predatory actions right for him in any way is beyond me.

[Chaos]

Keep personal comments to yourselves, they are just going to be deleted or this thread is going to be closed.

[Hammer]

The way I look at it with my grandfather is simple. He sent them so much money that he went hungry many times. When it negatively impacted his health and welfare, it became wrong, no matter how much he consented to it. How anyone could consider such predatory actions right for him in any way is beyond me.

It would be interesting to examine these things in the light of the gospel principles, rather than in the mindset of the world.

Was it the Lord who said, give all that you hath and follow Him?

[John Williams]

It would be interesting to examine these things in the light of the gospel principles, rather than in the mindset of the world.

Was it the Lord who said, give all that you hath and follow Him?

Again, we're confusing the intent of the victim (my grandpa) with the intent of the perps (the televangelists). They knew they were engaged in fraudulent activities, so the intent of their victim not only doesn't excuse their behavior, it makes it worse.

Granted, I'm not suggesting that polygamy was in the same category as monetary fraud, but I would suggest that the intent of the object (Helen Mar Kimball) says virtually nothing about the validity or intent of the subject (in this case Joseph Smith). It makes no sense to say that, because Helen later embraced polygamy, that Joseph's actions and intentions were entirely right.

[thesometimesaint]

John W:

I really do feel sorry for those taken advantage of, especially those that are infirm for any reason. I now take care of my aged mother, because she is no longer able to do it. She's OK mentally, but her old bod is just giving out after 91 years.

[Hammer]

Again, we're confusing the intent of the victim (my grandpa) with the intent of the perps (the televangelists). They knew they were engaged in fraudulent activities, so the intent of their victim not only doesn't excuse their behavior, it makes it worse.

Granted, I'm not suggesting that polygamy was in the same category as monetary fraud, but I would suggest that the intent of the object (Helen Mar Kimball) says virtually nothing about the validity or intent of the subject (in this case Joseph Smith). It makes no sense to say that, because Helen later embraced polygamy, that Joseph's actions and intentions were entirely right.

You are confusing your greatly biased opinion with fact.

[Teancum]

You are confusing your greatly biased opinion with fact.

Not really. John's point is very valid. Helen may have been or became quite fine with polygamy. Joseph still could have been malicious or bad in his intent.

[why me]

Not really. John's point is very valid. Helen may have been or became quite fine with polygamy. Joseph still could have been malicious or bad in his intent.

In helen's words:

â??It was a strange doctrine, and very dangerous too, to be introduced at such a time, when in the midst of the greatest trouble Joseph had ever encountered. The Missourians and Illinoisans were ready and determined to destroy him. They could but take his life, and that he considered a small thing when compared with the eternal punishment which he was doomed to suffer if he did not teach and obey this principle. No earthly inducement could be held forth to the women who entered this order. It was to be a life sacrifice for the sake of an everlasting glory and exaltation" (Whitney 1880-1883).

Let helen be helen.

[wenglund]

The way I look at it with my grandfather is simple. He sent them so much money that he went hungry many times. When it negatively impacted his health and welfare, it became wrong, no matter how much he consented to it. How anyone could consider such predatory actions right for him in any way is beyond me.

While I am certainly inclined to see it the same way you do (particularly if the old man was senial, and particularly given that I have an aging father that I am very protect of), I can also respectfully see how one may reasonably view it differently.

For example, looking at this economically, and assuming that maximizing happiness is the ultimate economic objective, I believe it reasonable for some one (the old man perhaps) to derive greater happiness from charitably donating money to religious causes, than spending that same money on food. In fact, when the boys from my ward come around collecting fast offerings, that is, in part, why I give in that way. By going without food for a time, and giving the money to charitable causes, I am happier than were I to have kept the money for myself.

My happiness (and perhaps the old man's as well) is in the giving, and not necessarily in what happens to the money that is given or who it may be given too--and this, in part, is because I don't know exactly where my money goes or what exactly is done with it.

And, were I to have charitable donated to the same religious organizations as the old man, and later discovered that they were "shysters" or "preditors" (as you call them), that wouldn't undo the happiness that I derived from the charitable giving, it would simply make me want to give my charitable dollars elsewhere, and perhaps take a little more care in where I may chose to give in the future. I may even decide to continue to give to the so-called "shysters" if I felt it still in some ways (i.e spreading the word of Christ), was a worthy cause.

In other words, at the time of the giving, economically it would have been the "right" thing for me to do. Once I discovered how the money was being used, then that may affect what is "right" for me in terms of the future (whether that means decide to continue to give to the so-called "shysters" or not).

Is that so unreasonable or beyond you? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Again, we're confusing the intent of the victim (my grandpa) with the intent of the perps (the televangelists). They knew they were engaged in fraudulent activities, so the intent of their victim not only doesn't excuse their behavior, it makes it worse.

Granted, I'm not suggesting that polygamy was in the same category as monetary fraud, but I would suggest that the intent of the object (Helen Mar Kimball) says virtually nothing about the validity or intent of the subject (in this case Joseph Smith). It makes no sense to say that, because Helen later embraced polygamy, that Joseph's actions and intentions were entirely right.

Your comment was: "I keep coming back to wondering what Helen's opinion has to do with the rightness of Joseph's behavior."

From what has since been stated, would you agree that Helen's opinion (particularly in the later stages of her life) at least has to do with how she perceived the "rightness" of polygamy in general, and specifically in relation to she and Joseph? And if so, is there something or someone that somehow trumps her perception of "rightness" for herself (your's and other people's opinion about polygamy perhaps?)?

And, reasoanbly assuming that Joseph felt the same "rightness" for himself regarding polygamy in general (at least in terms of sealings), and specifically in relation to Helen, is there something or someone that somehow trumps his perception of "rightness" for himself (yours and other people's opinion obout polygamy perhaps?)?

If your anser to either of these questions is yes, could you please explain what the trump would be?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-