Joseph Smith's Promise Made To Helen Mar Kimball

[TheSkepticChristian]

I would always presume a marriage to include sexual relationships.

 

and I would presume that they live together, you are simply cherry picking. It was obviously not a traditional marriage because they did not live together.

 

 

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.

 

many critics say that Joseph Smith contradicted himself on many things, it is funny how they simply cherry pick their arguments. 

I said that it is a different subject, many church history students disagree that "raising seed" was the only purpose. 

[Gray]

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 

 

Well, the marriage itself is suggestive of that kind of relationship, but I'm agnostic on the issue for this marriage in particular (that is to say, I withhold judgement) 

Edited June 11, 2015 by Gray

[TheSkepticChristian]

 marriage itself is suggestive of that kind of relationship

 

and also suggest that they live together

 

 

 but I'm agnostic on the issue for this marriage in particular (that is to say, I withhold judgement) 

 

Good 

[HappyJackWagon]

Well, the marriage itself is suggestive of that kind of relationship, but I'm agnostic on the issue for this marriage in particular (that is to say, I withhold judgement) 

People often get married but abstain from marital relations. Wait, no they don't. Either Joseph had relations with Helen, like he verifiably did with many of his other wives, or he picked out a really young girl just to call  "dibbs" for later. Either way, it's a morally bankrupt practice.

Edited June 11, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[TheSkepticChristian]

People often get married but abstain from marital relations. Wait, no they don't. 

 

and they often live together, you guys are cherry picking too much 

 

 

like he verifiably did with many of his other wives

 

so why can't we verify that same thing with Joseph and Helen? 

 

I am not an apologist, (many apologists make many assumptions too), I simply follow the evidence. It is not a virtue to make conclusions without evidence. 

Edited June 11, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[JLHPROF]

People often get married but abstain from marital relations. Wait, no they don't. Either Joseph had relations with Helen, like he verifiably did with many of his other wives, or he picked out a really young girl just to call  "dibbs" for later. Either way, it's a morally bankrupt practice.

 

Or maybe, just maybe, you are completely reading his motivations in a cynical manner and he had a loftier view of marriage.

[HappyJackWagon]

and they often live together, you guys are cherry picking too much 

 

 

 

so why can't we verify that same thing with Joseph and Helen? 

 

I am not an apologist, (many apologists make many assumptions too), I simply follow the evidence. It is not a virtue to make conclusions without evidence. 

I agree. The only thing similar between Joseph's marriages and normal marriages was the marital relations. They didn't live together. He didn't support them. They were hook ups. Sorry to be crass about it, but when he didn't act like a husband, probably at least in part because what he was doing was illegal and he was busy lying about it to the members and the world. If he lived with multiple women his secret would get out.

[Gray]

and also suggest that they live together

 

 

 

Given Emma's position on the matter (once she found out), and given the secrecy surrounding polygamy at the time, it's not surprising that it was very rarely that Joseph lived with his other wives. 

 

In this case in particular, it's quite possible that consummation was delayed, given HMK's age. 

Edited June 11, 2015 by Gray

[ALarson]

and also suggest that they live together

Joseph did not live with any of his plural wives (other than those who happen to be working in his home to help Emma) in a husband and wife relationship, yet there is testimony and records that he consummated many of those marriages even though he didn't live with them.  So, there is no cherry picking going on here.

Edited June 11, 2015 by ALarson

[ALarson]

I agree. The only thing similar between Joseph's marriages and normal marriages was the marital relations. They didn't live together. He didn't support them. They were hook ups. Sorry to be crass about it, but when he didn't act like a husband, probably at least in part because what he was doing was illegal and he was busy lying about it to the members and the world. If he lived with multiple women his secret would get out.

I agree with this.  If anyone on here defending Joseph's behavior learned of any leader or member of the church doing the same things today that Joseph did behind Emma's back, I cannot imagine they'd be defending this person or claiming he was only doing what God commanded.

 

I have a very difficult time believing that God would command one of his Prophets to live a principle that involved so many lies and so much deceit to obey and to live.  And, the lies and deceit continued after Joseph's death in order to keep polygamous relationships hidden from the members as well as nonmembers.

 

(And, this is why I'm not teaching our ward's lesson on plural marriage.)

Edited June 11, 2015 by ALarson

[TheSkepticChristian]

I agree. The only thing similar between Joseph's marriages and normal marriages was the marital relations. They didn't live together. He didn't support them. They were hook ups. Sorry to be crass about it, but when he didn't act like a husband, probably at least in part because what he was doing was illegal and he was busy lying about it to the members and the world. If he lived with multiple women his secret would get out.

 

You said, "like he verifiably did with many of his other wives"

I ask you again, Why can't we verify the same thing with Joseph and Helen? 

 

So if it was not a normal marriage and if there is no evidence, why make conclusions? 

 

Joseph did not live with any of his plural wives (other than those who happen to be working in his home to help Emma) in a husband and wife relationship, yet there is testimony and records that he consummated many of those marriages even though he did live with them. So, there is no cherry picking going on here.

 

You made it seem like it was normal marriage at first, that is cherry picking. Your argument is irrelevant 

 

I would always presume a marriage to include sexual relationships.

 

Today, if an adult marries a 14 year old girl, he gets arrested for marrying her. He will be convicted, but not for rape or sexual intercourse if there is no evidence that he had sex with her. In court you have to prove (with evidence) that  he had sex with her, assumptions won't help you in court. 

 

or perhaps the judge can dismiss the case if the marriage only turns out to be just a religious rite. 

Edited June 11, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ALarson]

He lived with some of them for a period of time. 

As husband and wife?

 

CFR

[TheSkepticChristian]

As husband and wife?

 

CFR

 

You are the one that needs to present the evidence. Where is the evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with Helen? 

It was not a normal marriage, so why jump to conclusions without any evidence?

 

I didn't say "as husband and wife" and I don't make conclusions without looking at the evidence first.

Edited June 11, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ALarson]

You are the one that needs to present the evidence. Where is the evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with Helen? 

It was not a normal marriage, so why jump to conclusions without any evidence?

 

I didn't say "as husband and wife" and I don't make conclusions without looking at the evidence first.

 

Today, if an adult marries a 14 year old girl, he gets arrested for marrying her. However, there won't be rape charges if there is no evidence that he had sex with her. 

By what you've stated here, (that Joseph lived with some of his wives for a period of time).  You need to answer the CFR.

 

HappyJackWagon stated:  

I agree. The only thing similar between Joseph's marriages and normal marriages was the marital relations. They didn't live together. He didn't support them. They were hook ups. Sorry to be crass about it, but when he didn't act like a husband, probably at least in part because what he was doing was illegal and he was busy lying about it to the members and the world. If he lived with multiple women his secret would get out.

 

You responded with:

He lived with some of them for a period of time. 

 

 

So, CFR as to which ones he lived with for a period of time.  If you were only referring to the girls who were in their home helping Emma, then your argument is not relevant at all.

Edited June 11, 2015 by ALarson

[Calm]

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.

It needs to be remembered that it was her father that asked Joseph to marry her, not Joseph pressuring Helen for his own ends.

 

I am not saying pressuring anyone into marriage is a good thing but we often look on marriage for a significantly different purpose these days than many did in the past.  It was not uncommon in the past and even now in other cultures for women (and men for that matter) to be married to benefit not themselves, but their families.  To benefit the family was/is to benefit themselves.  It is considered an honour to do so, to do anything that might further enhance the well being of the family.  (Of course those who are forced to do so do not look on it that way, one needs to be a volunteer and believe the value of the sacrifice to be that kind of participant.)

 

Certainly if someone asked a mother if she would do anything to ensure her family had a wonderful life throughout eternity, would anyone be surprised if that mother said "yes"? If someone asked a young teen these days whose family was sick and dying "what would you do to save them and have them healthy again", would anyone be that surprised if the young teen thinking of his loved parents and siblings said "anything required!"  And if there was something that young teen could do to save the lives of his family, would it be right to not tell him of the existence of the possibility simply because of his youth?

 

Whatever was asked of Helen, did her father believe it was true?  Did JS?  To me the issue is if all believed that Helen and her family would benefit eternally in some fashion, then would it be wrong to tell Helen that this was a possibility for her family?

Edited June 11, 2015 by calmoriah

[TheSkepticChristian]

So, CFR as to which ones he lived with for a period of time.  If you were only referring to the girls who were in their home helping Emma, then your argument is not relevant at all.

 

Fine, I made a mistake, I do admit my mistakes. HappyJackWagon made a mistake too, just admit it.  

He made it seem like a normal marriage (when it was not), so making accusations like that without evidence is not a virtue. 

 

 

I would always presume a marriage to include sexual relationships.

 

Today, if an adult marries a 14 year old girl, he gets arrested for marrying her. He will be convicted, but not for rape or sexual intercourse if there is no evidence that he had sex with her. In court you have to prove (with evidence) that  he had sex with her, assumptions won't help you in court. 

 

Perhaps he can be found innocent if the marriage only turnes out to be a religious rite. 

Edited June 11, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[DragonLancer]

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?

 

The key here IMHO is that this promise here is the same one as the sealing ordinance, where the righteousness of the parents guarantees the children as much as it can guarantee:  eventual entrance to the celestial kingdom AFTER their debt to justice is paid.  Afterward, exaltation in the highest glory is not assured, but is a case by case basis.  And so, Joseph Smith's use of the word "exaltation" here, if that is what he said, cannot be interpreted as that.  Rather, being raised to any glory is "an exaltation" to a glory.  And so, we cannot expect that our current use of the word "exaltation" where we equate it to mean "going to the highest glory" is what this meant.  Even if Joseph Smith DID mean that he would have been wrong in making this promise, because that kind of promise cannot be made.  It is simply not something that can be done.

 

Regardless of what Helen Mar Kimball may have recollected, or what Joseph Smith may have said or not said, nothing can overcome someone's free agency and lack of keeping the commandments and there will always be a consequence, even if they repent in the afterlife.  See Elder Faust's talk:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2003/04/dear-are-the-sheep-that-have-wandered?lang=eng

 

And so, my advice is to focus on Elder Faust's talk, and show what is actually doctrine, rather than trying to rely on whatever Helen Mar Kimball may have said.  Joseph Smith no doubt was promising as much as the Lord can promise without forcing someone into the highest glory, or forcing someone to be obedient and repentant.  It is simply not true that someone else can do something to bring someone else into exaltation in the highest glory without that person doing what has to be done on their own merits.

[ERayR]

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.

 

As for her age you can tell him you know of one other who married a 14 year old and had 55 good years and family of 12.

[Jeanne]

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, for one, appreciate that your bishop wants to be thorough and have some answers.

[JLHPROF]

As for her age you can tell him you know of one other who married a 14 year old and had 55 good years and family of 12.

 

As I mentioned in the plural marriages thread there were numerous kids between 14-17 that were married in the Nauvoo Temple, some to older men, some to other youngsters.  All the ordinances, ages, and dates are in the Nauvoo Endowment Companies book.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I agree with this.  If anyone on here defending Joseph's behavior learned of any leader or member of the church doing the same things today that Joseph did behind Emma's back, I cannot imagine they'd be defending this person or claiming he was only doing what God commanded.

 

I have a very difficult time believing that God would command one of his Prophets to live a principle that involved so many lies and so much deceit to obey and to live.  And, the lies and deceit continued after Joseph's death in order to keep polygamous relationships hidden from the members as well as nonmembers.

 

(And, this is why I'm not teaching our ward's lesson on plural marriage.)

Add to this that apparently living polygamy like Abraham wasn't good enough (with just 2 wives and 2 concubines). He needed to have 30+. I just can't understand it. How can this be meshed with the family proclamation guidance to be equal partners?

[Sanpitch]

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

 

When it comes to doubting Helen Mar Kimball's story, is someone going to try and doubt the journals of at least one other and I think more women who claimed Joseph told them that he had been threated by an angel with a flaming sword that he had to get this polygamy thing started?  I'm not going to look it up now but as I remember there were one or two that told that story.  Most people who read the histories will remember that.

 

And I think he said the church would be destroyed if he didn't.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Sanpitch

[ERayR]

Add to this that apparently living polygamy like Abraham wasn't good enough (with just 2 wives and 2 concubines). He needed to have 30+. I just can't understand it. How can this be meshed with the family proclamation guidance to be equal partners?

 

That is the problem with only being able to see things through pampered 21st century perspective.

[JLHPROF]

Add to this that apparently living polygamy like Abraham wasn't good enough (with just 2 wives and 2 concubines). He needed to have 30+. I just can't understand it. How can this be meshed with the family proclamation guidance to be equal partners?

 

You are kidding yourself if you think Abraham only had 2 wives.  Assuming eternal marriages he was sealed to at least 3, I wouldn't be surprised if some didn't make the record.  After all, D&C 132 names Isaac as a polygamist but the Bible only names Rebekah.  The Bible also tells us Peter was married but never names a wife/wives.  Realistically, if the same laws apply all the apostles were married and we have no record of any wives or children.

 

The family proclamation is as much a product of its day as the Old Testament.  Every principle in there is perfectly written to apply only to monogamous nuclear families.  You can bet if Joseph or Brigham wrote a proclamation on family it would read much differently.

Edited June 11, 2015 by JLHPROF

[ttribe]

That is the problem with only being able to see things through pampered 21st century perspective.

 

Hate to break it to you, but polygamy at any level, let alone 30+ wives, didn't exactly fly in mainstream 19th century frontier America, either.  Invoking *presentism* doesn't work in this situation.