Jump to content

Helen Mar Kimball


why me

Recommended Posts

She said herself she thought it was merely a ceremony. And Todd Compton concluded Joseph Smith's relationship with her was likely platonic. He thought it possible as she got older marital relations would have been included. But she didn't at the time lead a lifestyle of a polygamous man's wife.

Link to comment

Apostle John Widstoe disagreed with this line of reasoning, principally because there were more males in the LDS church than females. http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/Why.htm

Now if you were referencing a membership core composed of the offspring of elite mormon males then that's a different matter.

I was already acquainted with the Widstoe quote you cited. It does not refute my premise. I shall explain.

I never said that plural marriage could or should have continued indefinitely in the Church. I believe just the opposite, in fact.

What plural marriage did was to quickly establish numerous righteous households and genealogical lineages in the Church through which the Latter-day Saint belief system could be handed down to posterity and thus dispersed throughout the population more quickly than it otherwise might have been. Over time, this furthered the objective of taking the gospel throughout the world to every nation, kindred, tongue and people.

This is why I say plural marriage, for as long as it lasted, ensured the survival and eventual prosperity of the Church. The fact that nearly everyone today with Mormon pioneer ancestry has at least one polygamous ancestor bears this out. The legacy continues to spread geometrically as today's descendants from plural marriages themselves marry and have children.

Therefore, stock anti-Mormon arguments about raw population figures and male-female ratios in the 1800s are irrelevant, since the principle was only practiced by a comparatively few among the more righteous members, and this during a relatively brief, 40-year window of opportunity in the history of the Church.

Elder Widtsoe was right in saying that the reason plural marriage was practiced in the Church was that the Lord commanded it. Now, with the benefit of many years of hindsight, and in reflecting on the teaching in Jacob 2:30, we perhaps can begin to understand why the Lord commanded it.

Now then, would you care to try again, this time responding to what I did say, not to what I didn't say?

Link to comment

I was already acquainted with the Widstoe quote you cited. It does not refute my premise. I shall explain.

I never said that plural marriage could or should have continued indefinitely in the Church. I believe just the opposite, in fact.

What plural marriage did was to quickly establish numerous righteous households and genealogical lineages in the Church through which the Latter-day Saint belief system could be handed down to posterity and thus dispersed throughout the population more quickly than it otherwise might have been. Over time, this furthered the objective of taking the gospel throughout the world to every nation, kindred, tongue and people.

This is why I say plural marriage, for as long as it lasted, ensured the survival and eventual prosperity of the Church. The fact that nearly everyone today with Mormon pioneer ancestry has at least one polygamous ancestor bears this out. The legacy continues to spread geometrically as today's descendants from plural marriages themselves marry and have children.

Therefore, stock anti-Mormon arguments about raw population figures and male-female ratios in the 1800s are irrelevant, since the principle was only practiced by a comparatively few among the more righteous members, and this during a relatively brief, 40-year window of opportunity in the history of the Church.

Elder Widtsoe was right in saying that the reason plural marriage was practiced in the Church was that the Lord commanded it. Now, with the benefit of many years of hindsight, and in reflecting on the teaching in Jacob 2:30, we perhaps can begin to understand why the Lord commanded it.

Now then, would you care to try again, this time responding to what I did say, not to what I didn't say?

Dear Scott - I think your PM box is full. Tried to send you a note - no dice.

I appreciate your explanation, it makes sense to me, from a TBM perspective. I can respect that. Thanks.

Link to comment

So she made the choice to enter a polygamist relationship? I didn't read it that way.

It's funny how so many exploits can be rationalized this way.

The facts are:

1> a 14 year old girl has forced into a situation that she felt repulsive

2> Years later the woman defended the situation

Like I said, I don't think its all that surprising. And I don't think it makes JS look prophet-like.

Oh, so if she defended it when she was "14" and then decided it was repulsive you would find it surprising. Surely you wouldn't be letting your agenda be making your decisions for you.

Link to comment

Dear Scott - I think your PM box is full. Tried to send you a note - no dice.

I appreciate your explanation, it makes sense to me, from a TBM perspective. I can respect that. Thanks.

Thanks.

I didn't realize my box was full. I don't go there very often, and I've never deleted anything, so it doesn't surprise me. I probably have unread messages there.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...