Joseph Smith's Promise Made To Helen Mar Kimball

[JLHPROF]

We had a rough start on another thread, but I don't like to hold grudges. I'm not trying to bait you or anything my question is an honest inquiry because I like to better understand the perspectives of others. When I said that is the way I was taught, I'm not bitter about it, it's just reality. No hard feelings on my end.

 

Nor do I hold any grudge.

I just meant your statement about me that "are you frustrated with the church's attempts to water down these teachings and even distance itself from these teachings" was pretty much hitting the nail on the head.

I think the Church has chosen to distance itself from any teaching that appears too strange to people not of our faith, and to try and make other strange teachings appear less so.

[LonelyConvert]

You know, it was a different time then. Women in those days did not take care of themselves, they were cared for by thier father and then thier husband. Often times there were situations where there were not very many prospects for a young lady who desired to leave her fathers household in order to relieve the burden of caring for her, or even that she needed to make the alliance of marriage with someone in order to gain the social benefits of uniting her family with a more prosperous one in order to benefit her fathers household through the family link she could make between the two families through marriage... And the days of the pioneers these things were especially true.

I don't know all of the circumstances regarding this young lady or the marriage to Joseph Smith Jr., as I am a fairly recent convert and there are many things I don't know about the history of the church, but I do personally believe that God had a purpose for this, and it was not sexual gratification, but a means to an end that needed to come about, such as to produce particular children that would in themselves produce entire family lines that would not have existed otherwise, or to take care of a person who needed to have the security of a well established provider who could also be the difference between the offspring having a life following the gospel or a life turning away from God... Or these particular choices could have been the very thing that brought about a particular chain of events that would mean the difference between the life or death of someone today....

A man who has as many children as possible can produce an entire nation in only a couple of generations, so that could be the purpose of it as well?

It is difficult to know the purpose of such things without being able to see the entire infinitely complex tapestry of events and circumstance throughout all of space time and the finished product that such divine arrangements will produce...

 

As far as his promise for the salvation of her family, perhaps he was referring to the eventual baptisms for the dead and ordinances of sealing for them as well to preserve the salvation of her family, if they did not choose to pursue salvation in life? I honestly have little knowledge on the subject and am just throwing possibilities out there.

 

I honestly find is SO STRANGE that in a world where most people think gay marriage is perfectly acceptable, they get into such an uproar about polygamy.

Personally, I don't have a problem with polygamy in the least, save that it is illegal at this time.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I honestly find is SO STRANGE that in a world where most people think gay marriage is perfectly acceptable, they get into such an uproar about polygamy.

Personally, I don't have a problem with polygamy in the least, save that it is illegal at this time.

You will find that most people have a problem, not with polygamy, but with the details of how it was practiced.

[DBMormon]

I honestly find is SO STRANGE that in a world where most people think gay marriage is perfectly acceptable, they get into such an uproar about polygamy.

Personally, I don't have a problem with polygamy in the least, save that it is illegal at this time.

yeah two consenting adults is pretty much the same as a man marrying a 14 year old.... totally apples to apples... I'm with ya.

 

You just built a strawman.  who in our society is in a uproar over polygamy?  I think most people could care less about consenting adults.  The issue for mormons within their history and the World with their observation is that we are talking old men preying on young women and even if we consent that the program was led by God, you must admit even Mormon polygamists both in our early history and in the break offs today preyed to some extent on young women.  not apples and apples my friend.

[HappyJackWagon]

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. 

 

 

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. 

If someone stated that I have had relations with my wife I would not take it as an accusation that needed to be defended. Given the purpose of polygamy as stated in D&C 132 (to raise up seed) it would be the logical assumption that relations took place, though I'm open to evidence that they didn't. It doesn't much matter to me because even if they didn't, calling "dibbs" on a 14 year old is also troublesome. We know he had relations with other teenaged wives so why so much push back on this one? That's what husbands and wives do.

[ALarson]

Personally, I don't have a problem with polygamy in the least, save that it is illegal at this time.

IIRC, polygamy was also illegal back when Joseph Smith and others lived it in Nauvoo.

[ALarson]

You will find that most people have a problem, not with polygamy, but with the details of how it was practiced.

This.  And the lies and deceit that were involved (especially with Joseph and Emma).  This is one of the reasons members will argue vehemently that Joseph lived polygamy differently than Brigham Young when it came to marital relations between them and their plural wives.  Members are just fine knowing that Brigham Young had relations with his wives, but you try to discuss that Joseph did too, and they get upset about it.  

 

Why?  When both were Prophets and both were living the same principle?

Edited June 12, 2015 by ALarson

[rodheadlee]

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." 

Well yeah I can see where Joseph being 205 and Helen only being 182 would be a huge deal breaker in all eternity. Sheesh for a people that supposedly believes in eternal life we always seem to looking at the ground.

[Senator]

Well yeah I can see where Joseph being 205 and Helen only being 182 would be a huge deal breaker in all eternity. Sheesh for a people that supposedly believes in eternal life we always seem to looking at the ground.

 

Heck, with that perspective why stop at 14? Why not open it up to 8yr olds? What's another 6 years  in the eternal perspective?

[ALarson]

Our salvation is tied to our acceptance of Christ as our Savior - so it is tied to our faith.

Our condition AFTER being saved/resurrected is tied to our personal faithfulness.

This seems to contradict your original answer to my OP questions.  If salvation is tied to each individual person's faith and personal faithfulness, how could Joseph make promises to Helen for all her household members and her posterity?  

 

- 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?  

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

 

You answered it was because of the 2nd anointing (which Helen nor her Father had received yet):

 

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.

 

 

Maybe they aren't conflicting, but for me they seem to be.  So, I'm just asking for clarification.  Thanks.

[hope_for_things]

Nor do I hold any grudge.

I just meant your statement about me that "are you frustrated with the church's attempts to water down these teachings and even distance itself from these teachings" was pretty much hitting the nail on the head.

I think the Church has chosen to distance itself from any teaching that appears too strange to people not of our faith, and to try and make other strange teachings appear less so.

 

Thanks, yeah I was thinking about this and it’s really sad.  Some of the doctrines that I grew up on, that are still very precious to many members are being institutionally phased out, they no longer show up in manuals or conference talks.   Realistically, in another generation or two at the same trajectory those teachings will be as foreign as the Adam God doctrine is today.   

[juliann]

 

 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.

Questioning women's memories merely because they are uncomfortable is off the rails. Unless we question every "old" memory in Mormon history Helen's stands. She surely had the time to make sure she had this right and she remained a staunch supporter of polygamy throughout her life. 

 

This fits the theory that JS was trying to seal everyone into one family and did it through family ties. As for the 14 yr old, I'll bet there are few families that don't have a young marriage in their lineage. The sex angle is distasteful no matter what happened and it doesn't change the fact that she did consider herself married and thus unavailable to anyone else. That alone would make anybody uncomfortable.  It always comes down to we don't know what JS was trying to accomplish because he didn't leave behind many clues.

[juliann]

This seems to contradict your original answer to my OP questions.  If salvation is tied to each individual person's faith and personal faithfulness, how could Joseph make promises to Helen for all her household members and her posterity?  

 

- 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?  

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

 

 

 

 

I suspect that JS saw sealings somewhat differently than we do now, or was at least working it all out on the fly.  I suggest Elder Packer's 92 conference talk, Our Moral Environment. He quotes early leaders saying that our children will return. 

[JLHPROF]

Thanks, yeah I was thinking about this and it’s really sad.  Some of the doctrines that I grew up on, that are still very precious to many members are being institutionally phased out, they no longer show up in manuals or conference talks.   Realistically, in another generation or two at the same trajectory those teachings will be as foreign as the Adam God doctrine is today.   

 

Well, as an Adam-God believer I hope that isn't the case.

[Sanpitch]

Has anyone discussed, what to me is the beginning of the the Helen Mar Kimball story.  From "In Sacred Loneliness" page 495 the story is that Joseph Smith went to Heber and told him that Joseph was to have his (Heber's) wife violate.  Heber agonized on this for a few days and eventually took Violate to Joseph to give her to him.  Joseph said it was just a test of loyalty and was not required.  In another book I think I read that Joseph said that if they would give their daughter Helen to him that would fulfill the requirement.

[JLHPROF]

This seems to contradict your original answer to my OP questions.  If salvation is tied to each individual person's faith and personal faithfulness, how could Joseph make promises to Helen for all her household members and her posterity?  

 

- 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?  

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

 

You answered it was because of the 2nd anointing (which Helen nor her Father had received yet):

 

Maybe they aren't conflicting, but for me they seem to be.  So, I'm just asking for clarification.  Thanks.

I thought I had explained that when I wrote

"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."

 

The promise was that by sacrificing everything he had on the altar that Heber be qualified to receive his 2nd anointing, which he was given 8 months after Helen married Joseph (in the like way he received his eternal marriage sealing after offering Vilate in another Abrahamic test).

By receiving this blessing he can claim his wayward children in much the same way Christ has claim on ALL of us despite our sins.  Even sinners will be resurrected through Christ (unless they have become perdition).  Even a wayward child will remain sealed to Heber, thus insuring their eventual salvation and exaltation if they ever get themselves in order.  He has claim on his children as his eternally, just as Christ has claim on all of us as his (which explains why the BoM calls him our Eternal Father).

 

Acceptance of Christ as Savior is required for resurrection.  Rejection of Christ is perdition.

Faithfulness here determines the nature of our salvation, whether exalted or not.  By being sealed to Heber who would become a King, Priest and eventual God, any wayward children who weren't faithful to a Celestial level will still be connected to their father, in much the same way all Gods resurrected children still belong to Christ.  And their progression will continue until they prove more faithful at which time they will receive the birthright Heber offers.

[JLHPROF]

Has anyone discussed, what to me is the beginning of the the Helen Mar Kimball story.  From "In Sacred Loneliness" page 495 the story is that Joseph Smith went to Heber and told him that Joseph was to have his (Heber's) wife violate.  Heber agonized on this for a few days and eventually took Violate to Joseph to give her to him.  Joseph said it was just a test of loyalty and was not required.  In another book I think I read that Joseph said that if they would give their daughter Helen to him that would fulfill the requirement.

 

Personally, I believe these were two separate issues with similar themes.  Heber and Vilate was a test that resulted in the blessing of eternal marriage.  Helen's situation was an offering to the Lord that showed Heber would withhold nothing resulting in the blessing of his Calling and Election.

Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven after all.  Any religion that doesn't require sacrifice of all things cannot produce enough faith to lead to salvation and exaltation.

[TheSkepticChristian]

If someone stated that I have had relations with my wife I would not take it as an accusation that needed to be defended. 

 

Read my court example. 

 

 

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. 

 

 

. Given the purpose of polygamy as stated in D&C 132 (to raise up seed) 

 

Some say that JS contradicted himself on other stuff, but they say it only when it is convenient 

 

 

though I'm open to evidence that they didn't

 

Good, but you can't prove a negative. It is not possible to prove that he did not have sex with her, the burden of proof falls on you. 

 

 

 calling "dibbs" on a 14 year old is also troublesome

 

That is a different debate

 

 

We know he had relations with other teenaged wives so why so much push back on this one? 

 

because there is no evidence that he had sex with 14 year olds. Show me the evidence, then we don't have to push back. 

Bytheway, Joseph Smith did marry50 year olds too, did he have sex with them? One of them was 56 years old. 

 

That's what husbands and wives do.

 

in a normal marriage . 

Joseph Smith did marry 50 year olds too, did he have sex with them? 

Edited June 12, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[HappyJackWagon]

Read my court example. 

"

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."

 

"Today" is your first problem. You are judging Joseph's marriage by today's standards in a court of law. Of course the practice was just as problematic back then but your reasoning behind this is flawed.

 

 

 

 

 

Some say that JS contradicted himself on other stuff, but they say it only when it is convenient 

 

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Of course he contradicted himself at times. Are you arguing otherwise?

 

 

 

 

Good, but you can't prove a negative. It is not possible to prove that he did not have sex with her, the burden of proof falls on you. 

 

No, I can't prove a negative and I don't need to. Whether or not he had relations with this particular girl we know he did with others who were 15-19 years of age. So even if I were to stipulate that he didn't with Helen, it really doesn't change the overall argument about the character of his relationships with these girls.

 

 

 

 

That is a different debate

 

Sort of. There are two options for what he did. Both are deplorable.

 

 

 

 

because there is no evidence that he had sex with 14 year olds. Show me the evidence, then we don't have to push back. 

 

Does it make a huge difference to you if they were 15, 16, 17?

 

 

 

In a normal marriage  

[BookofMormonLuvr]

yeah two consenting adults is pretty much the same as a man marrying a 14 year old.... totally apples to apples... I'm with ya.

 

You just built a strawman.  who in our society is in a uproar over polygamy?  I think most people could care less about consenting adults.  The issue for mormons within their history and the World with their observation is that we are talking old men preying on young women and even if we consent that the program was led by God, you must admit even SOME Mormon polygamists both in our early history and SOME in the break offs today preyed to some extent on young women.  not apples and apples my friend.

 

Better.

[ALarson]

Joseph Smith did marry 50 year olds too, did he have sex with them? 

Why is this such an issue for you?  Do you think that Brigham Young had normal marital relations with his wives of all ages?  Why the double standard with you regarding Brigham and Joseph? 

 

Do you think Joseph lived the principle of polygamy differently than the other early Prophets that lived it?

[juliann]

Those same scholars also say that an 87 year old Mary Elizabeth Rollings Lightner testimony 62 years after events should not be doubted due simply because of age or time passed.

 

weird how we do that in apologetics

 

Apologetics? Every historian I've ever read does this. There should be additional support, of course.

[JLHPROF]

Why is this such an issue for you?  Do you think that Brigham Young had normal marital relations with his wives of all ages?  Why the double standard with you regarding Brigham and Joseph? 

 

Do you think Joseph lived the principle of polygamy differently than the other early Prophets that lived it?

 

You know something - if Joseph did have sex with Helen I have zero issue with it for two reasons:

 

1. She was his wife, properly sealed by priesthood authority.

2. Many 14-5 year olds were married at the time as evidenced by marriage record and having sex with their husbands and having babies.

 

So is the real issue only the age difference?  Yes, he was 23 years older than his wife.  Because that NEVER happens in a civilized society. /sarcasm

[juliann]

This is a good review of Merina Smith that shows how polygamy was a work in progress rather than a discrete revelation:

 

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2015/06/review-revelation-resistance-and-mormon-polygamy/

 

• Practice drove the theology as much as the reverse: “Theology and practice came to have a kind of contingent and symbiotic relationship in which the two grew together: resistance spurred an already-developing theology, which in turn provided support for the practice of polygamy” (p. 55).
• The death of Joseph Smith, Sr., as a key transition: “The heady days after the approval of the Nauvoo charter were followed by the death of Joseph Smith’s beloved father, Joseph Smith Sr., in 1840. It is quite possible that this loss had two effects on the son — it impressed on him the importance of eternal family connections, but perhaps it also removed an obstacle to polygamy, for most members of the Smith family were initially firmly opposed to it” (p. 65).
• The Book of Abraham and Freemasonry helped, in 1842, to lay a foundation for polygamy, Abraham being “well known as a polygamist” and Freemasonry “helped lend a sense of moral rightness to secrecy …” (p. 91, 92).
• Rumors, scandal, and the exploits of John C. Bennett roiled Nauvoo in 1842. To publicly acknowledge the practice would have had dire consequences for the Church, but continuing the secrecy was almost as bad. “The evils of continued secret practice, however, were also very great. The damage from rampant rumors and from the growing resistance of some informed leaders high in the church’s hierarchy was gradually tearing the church and the city apart” (p. 128).
• The review of how William Clayton was brought into the practice showed “the close connection between polygamy and priesthood” (p. 143). But as the theology developed, everything became linked to polygamy: the endowment, second anointing, the Quorum of the Anointed, salvation and exaltation (p. 165-68). The practice of polygamy was like a black hole that sucked in every developing LDS doctrine.

 

 

It also reinforces the author’s point, made at several places in the book, that the theology and the practice of polygamy developed in tandem, at times rather haphazardly. It simply was not the case that polygamy was first revealed, then slowly implemented. So many explanations and justifications were variously offered that they each begin to lose particular credibility. The practice developed its own momentum. Over time, it seems the justifications became largely irrelevant to the practice. “In Utah the theological narrative continued to evolve and develop” (p. 246). It’s still developing.

 

[ALarson]

You know something - if Joseph did have sex with Helen I have zero issue with it for two reasons:

 

1. She was his wife, properly sealed by priesthood authority.

2. Many 14-5 year olds were married at the time as evidenced by marriage record and having sex with their husbands and having babies.

 

So is the real issue only the age difference?  Yes, he was 23 years older than his wife.  Because that NEVER happens in a civilized society. /sarcasm

I've already stated that for me it's irrelevant whether or not Joseph had sex with Helen.  I don't agree with the way the marriage took place either way.