Joseph Smith's Promise Made To Helen Mar Kimball

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

That's because you see coercion and manipulation.  I see revelation and doctrinal validity.

Perspective is a tricky thing.

[HappyJackWagon]

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

1- The Sealing authority is different from regular priesthood authority. Certainly Joseph held this authority but did the men who married him to his wives also hold this authority? Is there a record of that?

 

2- Check out this link. http://classroom.synonym.com/age-marriage-us-1800s-23174.html Average marrying age was early 20's. We could say that even today some people are married in the US in their early to mid-teens but that doesn't mean it is a normal or average practice. Joseph (a 37+ year old man) sealing to teens would have been extremely unusual even in the 19th century.

 

My Bold- Yes, those middle aged men who marry young teens today end up in jail. Ask Warren Jeffs how that's going.

Edited June 12, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[ALarson]

That's because you see coercion and manipulation.  I see revelation and doctrinal validity.

Perspective is a tricky thing.

I get that and I know that we believe differently on this topic.  I'm also interested in reading your perspective even if we disagree.  

 

I also wonder how many here with young daughters (say, 14 years old) would be so understanding of a modern day older Prophet coming to them and asking for their daughter's hand in marriage?  Especially if they already had a legal wife and many other plural wives.  I know many will say, "Well, we are not to be living the principle today." But, many (most?) who were approached by Joseph knew nothing about the principle.

Edited June 12, 2015 by ALarson

[bluebell]

I get that and I know that we believe differently on this topic.  I'm also interested in reading your perspective even if we disagree.  

 

I also wonder how many here with young daughters (say, 14 years old) would be so understanding of a modern day older Prophet coming to them and asking for their daughter's hand in marriage?  Especially if they already had a legal wife and many other plural wives.  I know many will say, "Well, we are not to be living the principle today." But, many (most?) who were approached by Joseph knew nothing about the principle.

 

I would definitely have to make it a matter of fasting and serious serious prayer, and only then if i had already had a strong personal witness that the man in question was in deed a prophet of God.  

 

Like i said though, it would have to be an unmistakeable revelation for me to even consider it.  And i wouldn't break the law regardless.

[JLHPROF]

1- The Sealing authority is different from regular priesthood authority. Certainly Joseph held this authority but did the men who married him to his wives also hold this authority? Is there a record of that?

 

The sealing keys of Elijah are directly connected to the Apostleship (Matt 16:19)

The senior Apostle holds approving authority on all sealings, esp. plural ones (D&C 132:7)

Sealing authority can be delegated by that head to any worthy priesthood holder.

 

The President of the Church] has the right to delegate authority and to withdraw authority as he sees fit and receives inspiration so to do.

Remember there is only one on the face of the earth who holds the sealing power of the priesthood, and he can delegate that power unto others, that they may act and they may seal on earth and it is valid, it is binding, so long as he sanctions it; if he withdraws it, no man can exercise that power. - Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith, (2013), 151–60

 

2- Check out this link. http://classroom.synonym.com/age-marriage-us-1800s-23174.html Average marrying age was early 20's. We could say that even today some people are married in the US in their early to mid-teens but that doesn't mean it is a normal or average practice. Joseph (a 37+ year old man) sealing to teens would have been extremely unusual even in the 19th century.

 

Relevance?  Not trying to prove normalcy or average, just showing that it wasn't culturally a taboo, and that there were many other examples.  Additionally, if average age was early 20s that just means a percent were older and a percent were younger.

 

My Bold- Yes, those middle aged men who marry young teens today end up in jail. Ask Warren Jeffs how that's going.

 

Yes, because there are laws against it today.  Joseph broke no law of the land nor of the gospel.  Just as with polygamists today, he only had one legal wife.

Edited June 12, 2015 by JLHPROF

[ALarson]

Yes, because there are laws against it today.  Joseph broke no law of the land nor of the gospel.  Just as with polygamists today, he only had one legal wife.

Wasn't polygamy illegal in Illinois in the 1840's?

[JLHPROF]

Wasn't polygamy illegal in Illinois in the 1840's?

 

Yes.

But again as I said: Joseph broke no law of the land nor of the gospel.  Just as with polygamists today, he only had one legal wife.

[Senator]

 

Yes, because there are laws against it today.  Joseph broke no law of the land nor of the gospel.  Just as with polygamists today, he only had one legal wife.

 

Then are we to demand that Joseph had no sexual relations with any of his other wives, since Emma was his only legal marriage?

 

Or was the wording of the endowment covenant of chastity different then?

Edited June 12, 2015 by Senator

[JLHPROF]

 

Or has the wording of the endowment covenant of chastity different then?

 

Yes, it was.  Joseph broke no law of chastity covenant.

Edited June 12, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Senator]

Yes, it was.  Joseph broke no law of chastity covenant.

 

So we have a change in the covenant.

 

Interesting

[JLHPROF]

So we have a change in the covenant.

 

Interesting

 

We have lots of changes in the temple.  (As I've expressed frustration with many times).

Of the main temple covenants, several have changed.

[JulieM]

Yes.

But again as I said: Joseph broke no law of the land nor of the gospel.  Just as with polygamists today, he only had one legal wife.

So, do you believe all those early saints that were jailed for living polygamy were done so unjustly? They weren't breaking the law either?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

1- The Sealing authority is different from regular priesthood authority. Certainly Joseph held this authority but did the men who married him to his wives also hold this authority? Is there a record of that?

 

The sealing keys of Elijah are directly connected to the Apostleship (Matt 16:19)

The senior Apostle holds approving authority on all sealings, esp. plural ones (D&C 132:7)

Sealing authority can be delegated by that head to any worthy priesthood holder.

 

The President of the Church] has the right to delegate authority and to withdraw authority as he sees fit and receives inspiration so to do.

Remember there is only one on the face of the earth who holds the sealing power of the priesthood, and he can delegate that power unto others, that they may act and they may seal on earth and it is valid, it is binding, so long as he sanctions it; if he withdraws it, no man can exercise that power. - Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith, (2013), 151–60

 

That doesn't really anser my question. I understand Joseph held the keys (except at the time of his marriage to Fanny Alger) but we know he didn't perform the ceremonies himself. Is it assumed he bestowed sealing keys to the officiator( I assume by laying on of hands) prior to the sealings or are the journal entries or anything that indicate he did? In other words, just because JS had the keys didn't mean others had the keys. Does that make sense?

 

 

2- Check out this link. http://classroom.synonym.com/age-marriage-us-1800s-23174.html Average marrying age was early 20's. We could say that even today some people are married in the US in their early to mid-teens but that doesn't mean it is a normal or average practice. Joseph (a 37+ year old man) sealing to teens would have been extremely unusual even in the 19th century.

 

Relevance?  Not trying to prove normalcy or average, just showing that it wasn't culturally a taboo, and that there were many other examples.  Additionally, if average age was early 20s that just means a percent were older and a percent were younger.

 

It's Relevant because you brought it up. Just because something happened doesn't mean it wasn't a taboo. A 14 year old getting married today, while possible would still be frowned upon. I would challenge the assertion that the marriage of a 14 year old in the 19th century, especially to a much older man would be taboo. Stating the fact that it happened doesn't remove the stigma or taboo.

 

 

My Bold- Yes, those middle aged men who marry young teens today end up in jail. Ask Warren Jeffs how that's going.

 

Yes, because there are laws against it today.  Joseph broke no law of the land nor of the gospel.  Just as with polygamists today, he only had one legal wife.

 

[ALarson]

Yes, it was.  Joseph broke no law of chastity covenant.

That's interesting.  Do you have a link to where we can read the early, different, chastity covenant (or is that against board rules)?

[JLHPROF]

So, do you believe all those early saints that were jailed for living polygamy were done so unjustly? They weren't breaking the law either?

 

Absolutely.

The government (at least during Utah period which I believe was the only time people were jailed) literally had to create a new law forbidding "unlawful cohabitation" because there were no polygamy/bigamy violations of the law occurring.

[Robert F. Smith]

................................................................  

..........................................Helen's age is also pretty upsetting to most members .............................................  

And you know this how?  Was a poll taken?  Or does this reflect your own feelings?

 

Presentism is a strong element in our modern evaluation of history, but professional historians and anthropologists generally take the differences in stride, understanding that people in the past had a range of differences from us across a broad spectrum.  Mature reflection is needed.

[HappyJackWagon]

We have lots of changes in the temple.  (As I've expressed frustration with many times).

Of the main temple covenants, several have changed.

So the fundamentalists have it right?

 

If you take out the "legally and lawfully" wedded from the law of chastity then any "spiritual wife" would be acceptable, like the fundamentalists.

 

The church also has a problem with the "legally and lawfully" where it comes to SSM. They may need to take another look at that definition.

[JLHPROF]

That's interesting.  Do you have a link to where we can read the early, different, chastity covenant (or is that against board rules)?

 

It's out there, but I believe it's against board rules to post temple content or link to it.

But as late as 1927 it maintained the original wording  which allowed for polygamy and didn't require any state approval.

Edited June 12, 2015 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

So the fundamentalists have it right?

 

If you take out the "legally and lawfully" wedded from the law of chastity then any "spiritual wife" would be acceptable, like the fundamentalists.

 

The church also has a problem with the "legally and lawfully" where it comes to SSM. They may need to take another look at that definition.

 

If you believe it was altered by revelation you have no problem.

If you believe it wasn't, the original made no mention of the law.

[Calm]

I also wonder how many here with young daughters (say, 14 years old) would be so understanding of a modern day older Prophet coming to them and asking for their daughter's hand in marriage?  Especially if they already had a legal wife and many other plural wives.  I know many will say, "Well, we are not to be living the principle today." But, many (most?) who were approached by Joseph knew nothing about the principle.

 

A better comparison would be how many fathers would be suggesting to someone they believed was the prophet for him to be sealed/married to their 14 year old daughter.

[HappyJackWagon]

And you know this how?  Was a poll taken?  Or does this reflect your own feelings?

 

Presentism is a strong element in our modern evaluation of history, but professional historians and anthropologists generally take the differences in stride, understanding that people in the past had a range of differences from us across a broad spectrum.  Mature reflection is needed.

I'm all for taking a poll though I don't think that would turn out very well for the church.

 

Yes, it's presentism but our present views are very similar to the historical views. The age is a problem now and it was a problem then as well. Let's take a churchwide poll to see who agrees.

[Robert F. Smith]

..............................................................

 

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

Bing Crosby was about 55 when he married 25-year-old actress Kathryn Grant.  It was his second marriage, and no one thought it strange that a guy 30 years older would marry a younger woman..

[JLHPROF]

1- The Sealing authority is different from regular priesthood authority. Certainly Joseph held this authority but did the men who married him to his wives also hold this authority? Is there a record of that?

That doesn't really anser my question. I understand Joseph held the keys (except at the time of his marriage to Fanny Alger) but we know he didn't perform the ceremonies himself. Is it assumed he bestowed sealing keys to the officiator( I assume by laying on of hands) prior to the sealings or are the journal entries or anything that indicate he did? In other words, just because JS had the keys didn't mean others had the keys. Does that make sense?

 

Not sure what you are asking?

Any apostles (Brigham, Heber etc) that performed Joseph's marriages had the apostleship and his permission as holder of the keys.  Any non-apostles would be just like temple sealers - performing the ordinance with delegated authority.

Am I missing part of your question?

[JLHPROF]

Bing Crosby was about 55 when he married 25-year-old actress Kathryn Grant.  It was his second marriage, and no one thought it strange that a guy 30 years older would marry a younger woman..

 

My Father in law is currently 70, my mother in law is 48.  They married when she was 20 and he was 42.

Other than a few raised eyebrows from judgmental people nobody had an issue with it.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Opinion:

I don't believe a 14-15 yo girl, properly raised, is unfit for marriage- if that is her desire. The problem, these days, is that they are not raised properly. Very few young women, in this generation, would be fit for marriage.