Joseph Smith's Promise Made To Helen Mar Kimball

[hope_for_things]

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.

 

Most of Joseph's wives didn't live with him.  Lack of children was the case with almost all the wives, we don't know all the reasons why there weren't children, but we have evidence for sexual unions in many of the marriages, and that’s the whole point of marriage in the first place.  At any rate, Todd Compton takes a neutral approach, which I think is the most responsible position based on the evidence available.  

[JLHPROF]

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!

 

You asked what Joseph meant by this.  This is what I believe he meant.  I know of no other doctrine he could be referring to.

 

See my reply to Bluebell below, and you can read the Joseph Smith quote I provided from TPJS 321 too.

It really rubs some people the wrong way, usually those who want to see the wicked immediately punished and the righteous immediately rewarded with zero wait times or overlap in the next life.

And I think that the claim of a righteous King & Priest (and God) on the soul of a less righteous descendant will be more valid and powerful than we can imagine, just as Christ's claim on all us sinner is infinite.

 

I think there will be many adjustments made to people's status prior to the final judgement and possibly in the future following.  Progression is eternal after all.

Edited June 11, 2015 by JLHPROF

[ALarson]

See my reply to Bluebell below, and you can read the Joseph Smith quote I provided from TPJS 321 too.

It really rubs some people the wrong way, usually those who want to see the wicked immediately punished and the righteous immediately rewarded with zero wait times or overlap in the next life.

And I think that the claim of a righteous King & Priest (and God) on the soul of a less righteous descendant will be more valid and powerful than we can imagine, just as Christ's claim on all us sinner is infinite.

 

I think there will be many adjustments made to people's status prior to the final judgement and possibly in the future following.  Progression is eternal after all.

Ok, interesting.  A couple of other questions:

 

Had Helen received her 2nd anointing when this promise was made to her (about her current family and her future family members)?  Or do you believe this promise was conditional upon her future decisions as well as her decision to be sealed to Joseph?

Edited June 11, 2015 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

See my reply to Bluebell below, and you can read the Joseph Smith quote I provided from TPJS 321 too.

It really rubs some people the wrong way, usually those who want to see the wicked immediately punished and the righteous immediately rewarded with zero wait times or overlap in the next life.

And I think that the claim of a righteous King & Priest (and God) on the soul of a less righteous descendant will be more valid and powerful than we can imagine, just as Christ's claim on all us sinner is infinite.

 

I think there will be many adjustments made to people's status prior to the final judgement and possibly in the future following.  Progression is eternal after all.

 

Really good points, we shouldn't rush to judgment on these issues.  The theology of the temple was in its early stages and has evolved since the 1840s and will continue to evolve.  I think we understand a lot less of the picture than we think we do. 

[CV75]

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.

I think this kind of thing is part of “all we can do” as saviours on Mount Zion. The grace required for the exaltation of our families cannot happen if we do not do our part to enter the sealing ordinance since we would no longer be part of the family. Without us, there would simply be another chain of sealings for our forbearers and descendants to be established and ensured. But once we do our part to establish the link and be part of the family, the Lord ensures the rest.

[bluebell]

Most of Joseph's wives didn't live with him.  Lack of children was the case with almost all the wives, we don't know all the reasons why there weren't children, but we have evidence for sexual unions in many of the marriages, and that’s the whole point of marriage in the first place.  At any rate, Todd Compton takes a neutral approach, which I think is the most responsible position based on the evidence available.  

 

Agreed.  We have evidence for sexual unions in many of the marriages, but not in this one.  We also have some good evidence against it (no children, still living with mom and dad).  Not proof but from my perspective, it's enough evidence to form an opinion.  

 

As a trained historian, i am aware that all of history is taking evidence and forming opinions, and that the best part of studying history is the arguments that historians get into with each other over different interpretations of such evidences (just ask a group of historians if the feudal system actually existed or if it's a construct to see this awesomeness in action.  But you'll want to duck when the swinging starts!)

 

Compton is a better historian than i am and more knowledgeable on the overall subject but i disagree with his conclusions in this case.  I think that room must be left for the possibility that either outcome is true, but I don't feel that the evidence is inconclusive.

[JLHPROF]

Ok, interesting.  A couple of other questions:

 

Had Helen received her 2nd anointing when this promise was made to her (about her current family and her future family members)?  Or do you believe this promise was conditional upon her future decisions as well has the decision to be sealed to Joseph?

 

No, Helen didn't receive hers until after Joseph's death.

However Heber & Vilate received theirs in January 1844, 8 months after Helen married Joseph.  This secured her and her siblings and their descendants to Heber.

Likewise, she was sealed to Joseph who received his formally in Sept 1843, thus securing his family.

 

And to be VERY clear  it was based on the principle of giving your all upon the altar, not on buying a blessing.  Helen gave herself freely.  Heber and Vilate offered her freely.  By being willing to sacrifice everything and withholding nothing they became worthy of these blessings.  That requirement has never changed for the higher ordinances or for our Calling and Election from the Savior.

[mormonnewb]

Really good points, we shouldn't rush to judgment on these issues. The theology of the temple was in its early stages and has evolved since the 1840s and will continue to evolve. I think we understand a lot less of the picture than we think we do.

Amen! And I don't see it as faith-demoting to entertain the possibility that JS may not have completely understood the sealing process at the time. As I read the history, his theology was constantly evolving as he learned and grew as a prophet. So I don't find it disturbing that he MAY have been sincerely mistaken when he made that promise to HMK.

Sadly, I suspect that, for some saints, this might be a bridge too far but it seems completely consistent with the concept of continuing revelation. After all, why do we need modern prophets if the fullness of the Gospel was revealed to Joseph?

[theplains]

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.

 

The Book of Mormon quotes God as saying that “there shall not any man among you have save it

be one wife; and concubines he shall have none,” unless to raise up seed (Jacob 2:27-30).  But I

could not find one Latter-day Saint to have taken any concubines as mentioned in D&C 132:31-40.

 

Regards,

Jim

[cinepro]

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

 

Yes, it's possible Helen was unclear about the promise that was made that led her to willingly be sealed in marraige to a 37 year old man when she was 14.

 

Oh, I'm sorry, "several months before her 15th birthday." 

Edited June 11, 2015 by cinepro

[rpn]

My answer to that would be,

 

"We know that there were things that JS didn't understand about sealings, or at least didn't clearly teach.   In fact, Wilford Woodruff had a revelation in 1894 [fn.1] after which he told members to quit sealing to leaders and start sealing to ancestors.  (You can find more about that in the RS/PH manual from several years ago.) 

 

We also know that those engaged in polygamy in Nauvoo when it was secret were the majority of those who received the Second Anointing in the Nauvoo temple. [fn.2]   We don't talk about having one's calling and election made sure for many reasons.   And that may well be in part because some of those who have been given the Second Anointing have indeed left the church and disavowed its teachings (including Emma Smith about polygamy and succession after Joseph Smith's death).   Even in our day, people who have apostatized have claimed they did so after having received the ordinance.  [Denver Snuffer and the OK temple president and Tom Phillips, the former UK SP who brought litigation against the church last year  being three of them, though I wouldn't mention that in my response.]

 

There is no explanation for that, but sometimes our concern about it is related to an apparent misunderstanding about how we are saved.   Grace is our Savior's great gift to us through the atonement.   We don't earn our way to heaven, like we sometimes talk and think like we do.   We are transformed by our works to access the grace that is His free gift to us.  (See Elder Uchtdorf's April conference talk.)  

 

We simply do not know how a second anointing works or how it can redeem generations.  Likewise we do not know how the sealing power works to redeem generations.   We do not know what JS was thinking or meant by the promise to Sister Kimball.   What we do know is that Sister Kimball did not understand that the sealing was going to prevent her from attending community dances with her friends (she wrote a letter upset about that), that she surely would have known if she thought of what she did as a wedding, and herself as a spouse on earth.    When Sister Kimball married her new husband (age 22 to her 16) shortly after JS died, she was sealed to him for time, and resealed to JS for eternity.   [fn.3]  If you want to read more about Helen Mar Kimball, may I suggest Spencer Fluhman's thesis at http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/no-weapon-shall-prosper/subject-can-bear-investigation-anguish-faith-and-joseph-smiths

 

There are simply things we do not know both about the actual facts of what happened, and about how what happened fit in with what we know about God's will for us.  I'm okay with that.  And I am confident that you can also feel spiritual confirmation that there is nothing that JS did that need undermine your faith in his prophetic mission or the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Plan of Happiness.  Each of us know from our own service in the church, that Heavenly Father use willing people to further His purposes, however imperfect we are.   In the course of our callings we have all had experiences in which we sought to do the Lord's will, thought we were doing the Lord's will, only to later understand that we didn't do something exactly right anyway.    Therefore we need not lose faith if we come to a place in which we think JS or any other leader may have messed up.  I testify that the restoratioin of the Gospel and JS's prophetic mission happened, whatever sins or misdeeds or weaknesses, or failures JS may have had.   And I do so in the name of Jesus Christ, whom we all seek to serve."

 

 

 

 

footnote 1

Reaffirming the Eternal Nature of the Family

About three months before the Prophet Joseph Smith was martyred, he delivered a discourse to a large assembly of Saints. Elder Wilford Woodruff, who recorded a synopsis of the discourse, said that the Prophet spoke on “one of the most important and interesting subjects ever presented to the Saints.”⁴⁴ As part of this sermon, the Prophet testified of the eternal nature of families. He spoke of the need to be sealed to our parents and to continue that sealing ordinance throughout our generations:

“This is the spirit of Elijah, that we redeem our dead and connect ourselves with our fathers which are in heaven and seal up our dead to come forth in the first resurrection, and here we want the power of Elijah to seal those who dwell on earth to those which dwell in heaven. … Go and seal on earth your sons and daughters unto yourself and yourself unto your fathers in eternal glory.”⁴⁵

For the next few decades, the Latter-day Saints knew that there was to be “a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children” (D&C 128:18). However, their procedures were not completely set in order; as President Woodruff observed, the Prophet Joseph had not lived long enough to “enter any further upon these things.”⁴⁶ Acting according to “all the light and knowledge [they] had,”⁴⁷ they often had themselves sealed, or “adopted,” to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or other Church leaders of their day rather than to their own fathers and mothers. As President of the Church, President Woodruff referred to this practice, saying: “We have not fully carried out those principles in fulfillment of the revelations of God to us, in sealing the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers. I have not felt satisfied, neither did President [John] Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt that there was more to be revealed upon this subject than we had received.”⁴⁸

That additional revelation came to President Woodruff on April 5, 1894.⁴⁹ Three days later, in a general conference address, he told of the revelation: “When I went before the Lord to know who I should be adopted to … , the Spirit of God said to me, ‘Have you not a father, who begot you?’ ‘Yes, I have.’ ‘Then why not honor him? Why not be adopted to him?’ ‘Yes,’ says I, ‘that is right.’ I was adopted to my father, and should have had my father sealed to his father, and so on back; and the duty that I want every man who presides over a temple to see performed from this day henceforth and forever, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is, let every man be adopted to his father. … That is the will of God to this people. I want all men who preside over these temples in these mountains of Israel to bear this in mind. What business have I to take away the rights of the lineage of any man? What right has any man to do this? No; I say let every man be adopted to his father; and then you will do exactly what God said when he declared He would send Elijah the prophet in the last days [see Malachi 4:5–6]. …

“We want the Latter-day Saints from this time to trace their genealogies as far as they can, and to be sealed to their fathers and mothers. Have children sealed to their parents, and run this chain through as far as you can get it. …  https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-wilford-woodruff/the-life-and-ministry-of-wilford-woodruff?lang=eng

footnote 2   I don't recall which thread it was hear in which that was explained.  

 

footnote 3   (Brodie 1971, pp. 479–480;Compton 1997, p. 486).

[Buckeye]

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.

 

Hmmm..... if only Lucifer's parents had received a second annointing, he wouldn't have been cast out. Oh wait!

[JLHPROF]

Hmmm..... if only Lucifer's parents had received a second annointing, he wouldn't have been cast out. Oh wait!

 

Actually, it takes as many ordinances to create a devil as a God...Lucifer himself rose high enough in order to fall so far.  Sons of perdition have to have had their Calling and Election.

Edited June 11, 2015 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

Sadly, I suspect that, for some saints, this might be a bridge too far but it seems completely consistent with the concept of continuing revelation. After all, why do we need modern prophets if the fullness of the Gospel was revealed to Joseph?

 

Here we go again with the idea that continuing revelation involves changing prior revelation.  It doesn't.  It only provides more light, it never removes previous light.  Only we can do that with our foolish mortal notions.

[stemelbow]

Here we go again with the idea that continuing revelation involves changing prior revelation.  It doesn't.  It only provides more light, it never removes previous light.  Only we can do that with our foolish mortal notions.

Does that mean anything that does change is suggesting that the previous thing was not by revelation. Like the priesthood ban, or monogamy (which changed and then got changed back)?

Edited June 11, 2015 by stemelbow

[mormonnewb]

Here we go again with the idea that continuing revelation involves changing prior revelation. It doesn't. It only provides more light, it never removes previous light. Only we can do that with our foolish mortal notions.

Is that how the development of knowledge works? Just adding on to previous known facts? Or is it more often the case that we learn new principles that change our prior understandings (ie, the discovery of a helio-centric solar system, a round earth, EVERY other thing man has learned in the last 10 million/6,000 years)?

[JLHPROF]

Does that mean anything that does change is suggesting that the previous thing was not by revelation. Like the priesthood ban, or monogamy (which changed and then got changed back)?

 

Yes.

1. Priesthood ban - no revelation establishing it according to the essays.

2. Polygamy/monogamy - no doctrine (light) was changed, just the authorized practice of an ordinance, much like when Moses withheld the Melchizedek and gave the 10 commandments instead.

[JLHPROF]

Is that how the development of knowledge works? Just adding on to previous known facts? Or is it more often the case that we learn new principles that change our prior understandings (ie, the discovery of a helio-centric solar system, a round earth, EVERY other thing man has learned in the last 10 million/6,000 years)?

 

Revelation is not science.  It is God's teaching to man.  Unless God teaches a false revelation (impossible) nothing should change to any truth revealed from God.  I know, I know, revelation isn't REALLY the word of God right?  It's just our best guess as to what God want. 

[Gray]

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.

 

I don't think so - how many children did Joseph have with the 11 (?) or so women with whom there is strong evidence that the marriage was sexual? How many of them lived with him?

Edited June 11, 2015 by Gray

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

 

My understanding is that those who are sealed by the holy spirit of promise in marriage (not the 2A) , will have this benefit of saving their children. The 2A isn't even necessary for this.

 

 

The Eye of the Shepherd

 

“The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal , to a loving and forgiving father’s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain. Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God.

Who are these straying sheep—these wayward sons and daughters? They are children of the Covenant, heirs to the promises, and have received, if baptized, the gift of the Holy Ghost, which makes manifest the things of God. Could all that go for naught?” Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, April 1929, Third Day—Morning Meeting, Page 110

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

I don't think so - how many children did Joseph have with the 11 (?) or so women with whom there is strong evidence that the marriage was sexual? How many of them lived with him?

 

It is hard to prove a negative, so the burden of proof falls on the people that claim JS had sex with Helen.

No evidence = No argument 

[why me]

 

- 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?

We need to remember that polygamy was more or less an old testament practice and as such, when it comes to the practice it will cause problems for presentism. However, we also need to remember that helen wrote a defense of polygamy and so she is the one involved, and she was fine with it and defended the practice and did not write or say a negative word about joseph, what more can be said? One aspect of polygamy was the promise of kinship in the hereafter. I do believe that promises had to be made to get others to practice it. And a kinship in the eternities would be one promise that could be made. When we think of the old testament and all the strange things going on, joseph's polygamy and the restoration of polygamy during his time, was the least of the things people did to please god.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It is hard to prove a negative, so the burden of proof falls on the people that claim JS had sex with Helen.

No evidence = No argument 

This seems like a really odd argument to make. Marriages include a presumption of consummation. Given that the only reason officially acknowledged by the church for polygamy is to "raise seed", it would seem odd to argue that we should presume that Joseph wasn't fulfilling his duty in this regard. (BTW With Helen Kimball, I personally think the evidence weighs slightly in favor or no immediate consummation.)

Edited June 11, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[TheSkepticChristian]

This seems like a really odd argument to make. Marriages include a presumption of consummation

 

and they live together. Did Joseph and Helen live together? You are simply cherry picking. It is odd to make arguments without presenting any evidence. I am not an apologist,  (many apologists make many assumptions too), I simply follow the evidence. 

 

Not all marriages are consummated 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x263nod_the-wedding-ceremony-from-jeremiah-johnson-1972_shortfilms

 

 

 Given that the only reason officially acknowledged by the church for polygamy is to "raise seed"

 

That is a different subject and debate, but even if you are right, it still doesn't prove anything. 

Was Joseph Smith perfectly obedient to everything?

 

I think it is kind of funny that some critics say that Joseph Smith contradicted himself, but only when it is convenient for them to make that argument. 

Edited June 11, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[SeekingUnderstanding]

and they live together. Did Joseph and Helen live together? It is odd to make arguments without presenting any evidence. 

I am not an apologist,  (many apologists make many assumptions too), I simply follow the evidence. 

 

Not all marriages are consummated 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x263nod_the-wedding-ceremony-from-jeremiah-johnson-1972_shortfilms

 

The question is whether or not all marriages are consumated, but rather marriage includes a presumption of consumation (or as you put it who has the burden of evidence). I would say that absent any other information (proof) I would always presume a marriage to include sexual relationships. 

 

That is a different subject and debate, but even if you are right, it still doesn't prove anything. 

Was Joseph Smith perfectly obedient?

I would also say that I would presume that Joseph Smith was obedient to God's commandments. Perfectly so? Heck no, but I start assuming he was obedient until evidence shows otherwise, not the other way around which seems to be your preferred method.

Edited June 11, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding