Joseph Smith's Promise Made To Helen Mar Kimball

[ALarson]

Last night my Bishop called and asked for some help regarding Helen Mar Kimball (in relation to her being the youngest of Joseph's wives that is mentioned in the church essay).  I can tell he's struggling with how to present this to the ward when he teaches the 5th Sunday discussion on this topic.  

 

He asked about the promise that Joseph made to Helen (and then told me that members have asked him this question too, so he's fairly certain it will come up during the discussion if we open it up to a Q & A session):  

 

Helen wrote:

I heard him [Joseph Smith] teach and explain the principle of celestial marriage. After which he said to me, “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father’s household and all of your kindred.” This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.                                                                                     (Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, “Autobiography, 30 March 1881,” MS 744, CHL.) 

 

- How could Joseph promise Helen this regarding all of her "father's household" and also all of her kindred without knowing what kind of lives they would each live?  

 

- What do we know about who was included in her "father's household" and in her "kindred"?  

 

- Did they all stay in the church and remain faithful members?

 

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

Last night my Bishop called and asked for some help regarding Helen Mar Kimball (in relation to her being the youngest of Joseph's wives that is mentioned in the church essay).  I can tell he's struggling with how to present this to the ward when he teaches the 5th Sunday discussion on this topic.  

 

He asked about the promise that Joseph made to Helen (and then told me that members have asked him this question too, so he's fairly certain it will come up during the discussion if we open it up to a Q & A session):  

 

Helen wrote:

 

- How could Joseph promise Helen this regarding all of her "father's household" and also all of her kindred without knowing what kind of lives they would each live?  

 

- What do we know about who was included in her "father's household" and in her "kindred"?  

 

- Did they all stay in the church and remain faithful members?

Yep- that's a problem. It's coersive at least, a total lie at worst.

 

This kind of question also led me into questions about the 2nd Annointing where similar eternal judgements are passed.

[Buckeye]

Frankly, if the discussion gets into Helen Mar Kimball territory you're unlikely to get anything positive. There's a reason why the church essays break polygamy into four different units - and even then I'd be reluctant to try to squeeze any one of the essays into a 5th Sunday lesson. There's simply too much information. And too much controversy. I'd start with WOW acceptance or frontier violence.

 

That said, if the subject of Helen Mar does come up, you may point your bishop to this resource from the Hales: http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/helen-mar-kimball/.  As you can see, the leading approach is to deflect the quote by casting doubt on Helen's ability to recall decades later what was said to her as a 14-year-old girl. It could be that Joseph discussed the importance of the practice to helping her family's eternal state, and Helen took it to mean a guarantee. Who knows? But the quote itself is very reliable and has been cited by many historians.

[Senator]

Last night my Bishop called and asked for some help regarding Helen Mar Kimball (in relation to her being the youngest of Joseph's wives that is mentioned in the church essay).  I can tell he's struggling with how to present this to the ward when he teaches the 5th Sunday discussion on this topic.  

 

He asked about the promise that Joseph made to Helen (and then told me that members have asked him this question too, so he's fairly certain it will come up during the discussion if we open it up to a Q & A session):  

 

Helen wrote:

 

- How could Joseph promise Helen this regarding all of her "father's household" and also all of her kindred without knowing what kind of lives they would each live?  

 

- What do we know about who was included in her "father's household" and in her "kindred"?  

 

- Did they all stay in the church and remain faithful members?

I don't know how anyone would even dare answer it.

 

I would be prone to just not offer any answer, and let each individual deal with them on their own.

[ALarson]

Frankly, if the discussion gets into Helen Mar Kimball territory you're unlikely to get anything positive. There's a reason why the church essays break polygamy into four different units - and even then I'd be reluctant to try to squeeze any one of the essays into a 5th Sunday lesson. There's simply too much information. And too much controversy. I'd start with WOW acceptance or frontier violence.

 

That said, if the subject of Helen Mar does come up, you may point your bishop to this resource from the Hales: http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/helen-mar-kimball/.  As you can see, the leading approach is to deflect the quote by casting doubt on Helen's ability to recall decades later what was said to her as a 14-year-old girl. It could be that Joseph discussed the importance of the practice to helping her family's eternal state, and Helen took it to mean a guarantee. Who knows? But the quote itself is very reliable and has been cited by many historians.

Thanks for the link, Buckeye.  I'll share it with my Bishop.

 

I agree that discussing plural marriage is something that could take many, many lessons (as I just posted in my other thread too).  I've suggested just maybe starting with the revelation (D&C 132) and doing a discussion on that first.

 

Right now the Bishop wants to teach the essays in chronological order and since Helen is named in the one regarding Joseph's polygamy, he's fairly certain questions will be asked about her. Helen's age is also pretty upsetting to most members and I'm not sure how to avoid that coming up as well.  

[stemelbow]

As you can see, the leading approach is to deflect the quote by casting doubt on Helen's ability to recall decades later what was said to her as a 14-year-old girl. It could be that Joseph discussed the importance of the practice to helping her family's eternal state, and Helen took it to mean a guarantee. Who knows?

I wouldn't say it's a nefarious point. it's certainly a possibility. We all ought to be hopeful it was an exaggeration of some sort at the very least.

[ALarson]

I don't know how anyone would even dare answer it.

Maybe not, but according to the Bishop this is a question that is frequently asked in private when he's had members come to him with questions about Joseph's polygamy.  If he opens the discussion up for questions, I would not be surprised to hear some asked about Helen since she's named in the essay.

Edited June 11, 2015 by ALarson

[Buckeye]

Thanks for the link, Buckeye.  I'll share it with my Bishop.

 

I agree that discussing plural marriage is something that could take many, many lessons (as I just posted in my other thread too).  I've suggested just maybe starting with the revelation (D&C 132) and doing a discussion on that first.

 

Right now the Bishop wants to teach the essays in chronological order and since Helen is named in the one regarding Joseph's polygamy, he's fairly certain questions will be asked about her. Helen's age is also pretty upsetting to most members and I'm not sure how to avoid that coming up as well.  

 

Regarding the age, most defenders conclude that it was "eternal only" and so no sex. See the church essay. But even then you still have to deal with whether it's right to place that pressure on a 14 year old at all.

[Buckeye]

I wouldn't say it's a nefarious point. it's certainly a possibility. We all ought to be hopeful it was an exaggeration of some sort at the very least.

 

I'm not saying nefarious. She could easily have misremembered or embellished.

[hope_for_things]

- How could Joseph promise Helen this regarding all of her "father's household" and also all of her kindred without knowing what kind of lives they would each live?  

 

The overarching goal of the polygamy essays was to protect the character of Joseph Smith.  Interestingly they were totally willing to disavow Brigham’s racist policies that we find morally problematic today, but they drew the line on calling anything that Joseph did morally questionable.    

 

I find much of the polygamy story morally problematic.  I don’t believe in the false dilemma that the Hales create where they say that Joseph never did anything that would disqualify him from being a prophet.  What’s that supposed to mean?  We don’t have a guidebook from God that says what qualifies or disqualifies a person from being a prophet.  Look at biblical prophets if you want to see flawed people that we still hold up as prophets.

 

The history of the Helen Kimball story as we have it today is morally unacceptable.  How accurate is our picture?  Well, that’s the only question in my mind, we don’t have a whole lot of contemporary information, so could Helen’s later recollections be inaccurate, yes.  Is it theoretically possible that God commanded Joseph to take her and other young women as brides?  Each person will have to answer that for themselves. 

 

I personally don’t believe it was from God.  But how can you teach that in Sunday School when it directly contradicts the message of the essays?  The essays should have allowed for more error on Joseph’s part, and shouldn’t have protected his decisions as being from God when they were more than willing to throw out Brigham’s ideas as culturally biased.  

Edited June 11, 2015 by hope_for_things

[stemelbow]

Regarding the age, most defenders conclude that it was "eternal only" and so no sex. See the church essay. But even then you still have to deal with whether it's right to place that pressure on a 14 year old at all.

In another way, fi at all true and verifiable, it takes a ton of pressure off a 14 year old, at least for the rest of her life. If I was told to marry an old lady with no teeth and knew if I did it'd ensure the salvation of my entire family, I'd do it in a second and feel relief.

[Senator]

Regarding the age, most defenders conclude that it was "eternal only" and so no sex. See the church essay. But even then you still have to deal with whether it's right to place that pressure on a 14 year old at all.

Defenders are also quick to remind us that these young brides was not uncommon in those days.

 

A question then arises (Scott check ), was it common for these other "common" young bride marriages to be non-sexual as well? If yes, then Joseph and Helen's marriage would have been consistant with the prevailing norm. If no, then their marriage would have been unusual, or unexpeted.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Senator

[stemelbow]

The overarching goal of the polygamy essays was to protect the character of Joseph Smith.  Interestingly they were totally willing to disavow Brigham’s racist policies that we find morally problematic today, but they drew the line on calling anything that Joseph did morally questionable.    

 

I find much of the polygamy story morally problematic.  I don’t believe in the false dilemma that the Hales create where they say that Joseph never did anything that would disqualify him from being a prophet.  What’s that supposed to mean?  We don’t have a guidebook from God that says what qualifies or disqualifies a person from being a prophet.  Look at biblical prophets if you want to see flawed people that we still hold up as prophets.

 

The history of the Helen Kimball story as we have it today is morally unacceptable.  How accurate is our picture?  Well, that’s the only question in my mind, we don’t have a whole lot of contemporary information, so could Helen’s later recollections be inaccurate, yes.  Is it theoretically possible that God commanded Joseph to take her and other young women as brides?  Each person will have to answer that for themselves. 

 

I personally don’t believe it was from God.  But how can you teach that in Sunday School when it directly contradicts the message of the essays?  The essays should have allowed for more error on Joseph’s part, and shouldn’t have protected his decisions as being from God when they were more than willing to throw out Brigham’s ideas as culturally biased.

Nice read. It made me go...wait...what? Didn't I just read that?

Just playing. Interesting thoughts. I'm very close to the same. If I had to teach polygamy in Church I'd probably have to go with the it was no inspired. I think I could try to avoid the question of whether inspiration, I guess. But it wouldn't feel complete.

[stemelbow]

Last night my Bishop called and asked for some help regarding Helen Mar Kimball (in relation to her being the youngest of Joseph's wives that is mentioned in the church essay).  I can tell he's struggling with how to present this to the ward when he teaches the 5th Sunday discussion on this topic.  

 

He asked about the promise that Joseph made to Helen (and then told me that members have asked him this question too, so he's fairly certain it will come up during the discussion if we open it up to a Q & A session):  

 

Helen wrote:

 

- How could Joseph promise Helen this regarding all of her "father's household" and also all of her kindred without knowing what kind of lives they would each live?  

 

- What do we know about who was included in her "father's household" and in her "kindred"?  

 

- Did they all stay in the church and remain faithful members?

I'd say, doesn't make sense to me. If it makes sense to you, then go ahead and think Joseph said it. If not, then assume it was accidentally exaggerated or misunderstood.

[bluebell]

Defenders are also quick to remind us that these young brides was not uncommon in those days.

 

A question then arises (Scott check ), was it common for these other "common" young bride marriages to be non-sexual as well? If yes, then Joseph and Helen's marriage would have been consistant with the prevailing norm. If no, then their marriage would have been unusual, or unexpeted.

 

That it was a plural marriage already makes it unusual and unexpected.  Given that the framework of the marriage was odd to begin with, it wouldn't be surprising that other aspects of the marriage were equally odd (such as it being a nonsexual union).

[Mystery Meat]

I don't know how anyone would even dare answer it.

 

I would be prone to just not offer any answer, and let each individual deal with them on their own.

 

Agreed. There are some questions that don't have answers.

[JLHPROF]

Last night my Bishop called and asked for some help regarding Helen Mar Kimball (in relation to her being the youngest of Joseph's wives that is mentioned in the church essay).  I can tell he's struggling with how to present this to the ward when he teaches the 5th Sunday discussion on this topic.  

 

He asked about the promise that Joseph made to Helen (and then told me that members have asked him this question too, so he's fairly certain it will come up during the discussion if we open it up to a Q & A session):  

 

Helen wrote:

 

- How could Joseph promise Helen this regarding all of her "father's household" and also all of her kindred without knowing what kind of lives they would each live?  

 

- What do we know about who was included in her "father's household" and in her "kindred"?  

 

- Did they all stay in the church and remain faithful members?

 

It refers directly to this teaching which is related to the second anointing:

 

“When a seal is put upon the father and mother, it secures their posterity, so that they cannot be lost, but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father and mother."  TPJS pg 321 and in the 2014 March Ensign

 

We REALLY like to assume that all blessings/damnation received there are the direct result of reward/punishment for our actions here.  The gospel truth is much more complex.

[mormonnewb]

Your bishop could always use the J. Golden Kimball approach.

Bishop: "I'm not sure what Joseph meant by that. I'll have to ask him when I get to heaven."

Questioner: "Well, after telling a lie like that, what if Joseph doesn't make it to heaven?"

Bishop: "Well, in that case, YOU can ask him."

[ALarson]

Defenders are also quick to remind us that these young brides was not uncommon in those days.

 

A question then arises (Scott check ), was it common for these other "common" young bride marriages to be non-sexual as well? If yes, then Joseph and Helen's marriage would have been consistant with the prevailing norm. If no, then their marriage would have been unusual, or unexpeted.

I really don't want this to turn into a discussion on whether or not Joseph and Helen's marriage was consummated. For me, it's still upsetting either way for a 38 year old man to want to marry a 14 year old (and I doubt this type of marriage was "common" back then.)  I've also read that the average age for a young woman to marry during this time period was 21 years old (but need to revisit that).  I'd imagine that most young brides were marrying young grooms (or at least younger than Joseph was) and also grooms that didn't already have dozens of other wives.

 

Helen's age is an issue for most members when they learn about it.

Edited June 11, 2015 by ALarson

[bluebell]

 

We REALLY like to assume that all blessings/damnation received there are the direct result of reward/punishment for our actions here.  The gospel truth is much more complex.

 

I don't think it's just something we like to do, but something that seems reasonable to assume given other doctrines about salvation and agency.

 

If no one is damned because of someone else's transgression, then how are people saved because of someone else's righteous choice?  If satan could not take away people's agency and guarantee their salvation then how can anyone else do it?  

 

It's confusing.

[hope_for_things]

That it was a plural marriage already makes it unusual and unexpected.  Given that the framework of the marriage was odd to begin with, it wouldn't be surprising that other aspects of the marriage were equally odd (such as it being a nonsexual union).

 

There’s no strong evidence that rules out sexuality in this or other unions.  Historians disagree on where the evidence points for Helen on this matter.  I think its inconclusive at best.  

Edited June 11, 2015 by hope_for_things

[bluebell]

There’s no strong evidence that rules out sexuality in this or other unions.  Historians disagree on where the evidence points for Helen on this matter.  I this its inconclusive at best.  

 

Lack of children and her continuing to live with her parents after the marriage is strong evidence, as i see it.  Not proof of course, but certainly evidence in support of a nonsexual union.

[ALarson]

It refers directly to this teaching which is related to the second anointing:

 

“When a seal is put upon the father and mother, it secures their posterity, so that they cannot be lost, but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father and mother."  TPJS pg 321 and in the 2014 March Ensign

 

We REALLY like to assume that all blessings/damnation received there are the direct result of reward/punishment for our actions here.  The gospel truth is much more complex.

As always, thanks JLHPROF for your input.

 

But just to clarify, are you saying that those who have received their 2nd anointing also have been given the promise that this anointing will "ensure the eternal salvation and exaltation" of their posterity too?

 

If so, I haven't heard that before!

[CV75]

He asked about the promise that Joseph made to Helen (and then told me that members have asked him this question too, so he's fairly certain it will come up during the discussion if we open it up to a Q & A session):

It's an autobiography, so there may be mistakes here and there.

[JLHPROF]

I don't think it's just something we like to do, but something that seems reasonable to assume given other doctrines about salvation and agency.

 

If no one is damned because of someone else's transgression, then how are people saved because of someone else's righteous choice?  If satan could not take away people's agency and guarantee their salvation then how can anyone else do it?  

 

It's confusing.

 

Agreed.  Very confusing.

But as I've shown before, agency increases with righteousness and decreases with wickedness.  I also have posted the Heber C. Kimball quote about God compelling people to keep their covenants eventually.  And of course there is the principle of work for the dead, which while it doesn't remove agency does allow for some postmortal repentance even if actions in this life aren't great.

There is even the oft-maligned Brigham Young quote about Joseph saving Emma from hell.

 

My point is that while everyone has agency the "seal" on the parents guarantees that they have claim on their posterity.  Just as the second anointing guarantees a man and woman exaltation, and guarantees a woman claim on her husband (as in John 12:7).

 

The statement of Joseph to Helen isn't removing agency, it's about birthright, claim, sealing, etc.  Priesthood authority is used to provide salvation, both here and in the world to come.  He was promising that level of authority to her family.