Do The Essays Confirm "anti-Mormon Lies"?

[Mystery Meat]

Let me be more specific.  It is one thing to simply raise an issue (say Joseph Smith was sealed to a 14 year old which is true) and drawing a conclusion from that which may be a lie (Joseph Smith was a pedophile and just wanted a lot of sex).  There is simply no evidence to suggest that Joseph ever had a sexual relationship with that 14 year old.  Having read enough anti-mormon material in my life I can say with confidence that truth can be found in their claims that is also mixed with lies, misrepresentations, ect.   People can use truth and abuse that truth through evil motives to get people to arrive at conclusions that the truth never really supports. 

 

This is how I feel as well. To be fair, and this is an important concession that I think all should be willing to make, there was a culture in the Church that seemed to think that anything from Church history that was unfamiliar, peculiar or uncomfortable was part of the anti-mormon lies. I think the Church culture has started to change, where people realize that Church history is a lot more nuanced than previously thought.

 

However, there are actual anti-mormon lies. While there is undoubtedly truth in each of those lies, anti-mormons (at least one member of my own family included) become so convinced of wild speculation that they start to teach it as historical fact. We could read two journal entries that describe the same event, and an anti-mormon would teach that one was the gospel truth and totally discount or completely ignore the other. If anything, as Bushman has said, they transition from one black and white line of thinking to another. So I think the overall answer to this question, at least in my opinion and experience, is no, the essays do not confirm anti-mormon lies, but probably clarify truths upon which those lies are based.

[jkwilliams]

This is how I feel as well. To be fair, and this is an important concession that I think all should be willing to make, there was a culture in the Church that seemed to think that anything from Church history that was unfamiliar, peculiar or uncomfortable was part of the anti-mormon lies. I think the Church culture has started to change, where people realize that Church history is a lot more nuanced than previously thought.

 

However, there are actual anti-mormon lies. While there is undoubtedly truth in each of those lies, anti-mormons (at least one member of my own family included) become so convinced of wild speculation that they start to teach it as historical fact. We could read two journal entries that describe the same event, and an anti-mormon would teach that one was the gospel truth and totally discount or completely ignore the other. If anything, as Bushman has said, they transition from one black and white line of thinking to another. So I think the overall answer to this question, at least in my opinion and experience, is no, the essays do not confirm anti-mormon lies, but probably clarify truths upon which those lies are based.

 

Generally speaking , I try to assume that most people are honest and doing the best they can. Disagreements are usually based on disagreements, not that one side "lies" and the other doesn't. Yes, there are some dishonest critics of the LDS church, just as there are some dishonest defenders of the church. But most people I have met on either side have been decent, honest people who simply disagree. Of course, I've been told I'm the worst kind of anti-Mormon there is, so what do I know? 

[KevinG]

Generally speaking , I try to assume that most people are honest and doing the best they can.

 

But if they use sarcasm he will put them on ignore.  

[jkwilliams]

But if they use sarcasm he will put them on ignore.  

 

I only have one person on ignore, and it's not you, and it's not because of sarcasm.

[Sleeper Cell]

Nope, you didn't. Just thought it was interesting that someone responded to an argument that no one here seemed to be making. 

 

Sigh.

 

Our exchange began with my response to your post:

I've never understood why anyone thinks that's [“Except that such, and worse were authorized in the Bible]  a good argument. 

I responded:

It is a reasonable argument when addressed to someone who criticizes and/or rejects Joseph Smith because of his behavior, yet has no problem accepting the Biblical prophets  despite their similar (and even worse) behavior.

You asked why anyone thought it might be a reasonable argument [not why the poster thought it was a good argument in response to another specific poster].  I gave an example of how it could be a reasonable argument (when addressed to someone who …).

 

 From there, our mini-discussion went downhill, obscuring the fact that I actually agreed with what I believe was your underlying point -- that Biblical precedent is no justification for polygamy. 

 

BTW, if two reasonably intelligent people can so fundamentally misunderstand each other about things they said to each other  within the last few hours  -- when both have a verbatim record of what was said -- perhaps we should exercise a little more humility when passing judgment on the private relationships of people who lived over 150 years ago.    

[Calm]

Thanks calmoriah. I had forgotten that verse. However, the sentence structure seems to go out of it's way to include Isaac and Jacob only in respect to the more general activity of keeping God's law.

I agree it is ambiguious.

But many critics ime argue against claims that certain verses in 132 can refer to monogamous celestial marriage because they see the entire context being plural marriage.

I don't agree but I can understand that POV and I assume that some members have interpreted it that way as well. If so, it makes more sense to see Isaac as a polygynist as well.

[jkwilliams]

 

Sigh.

 

Our exchange began with my response to your post:

 

I responded:

 

You asked why anyone thought it might be a reasonable argument [not why the poster thought it was a good argument in response to another specific poster].  I gave an example of how it could be a reasonable argument (when addressed to someone who …).

 

 From there, our mini-discussion went downhill, obscuring the fact that I actually agreed with what I believe was your underlying point -- that Biblical precedent is no justification for polygamy. 

 

BTW, if two reasonably intelligent people can so fundamentally misunderstand each other about things they said to each other  within the last few hours  -- when both have a verbatim record of what was said -- perhaps we should exercise a little more humility when passing judgment on the private relationships of people who lived over 150 years ago.    

 

 

I don't think we're in much disagreement at all. You weren't the one who made that argument here (I'd have to go back and see who did), and I was commenting on how strange it was for that argument to come out of nowhere when no one was making the argument that Joseph Smith was a bad man for practicing polygamy and/or that God doesn't like polygamy. It might be relevant if, say a fundamentalist Christian were making that argument, 

 

Either way, I don't know what Joseph Smith was thinking, so I don't condemn him. I do know that I couldn't sneak around behind my wife's back like that, even if I thought it was pleasing to God. In the end, there seem to be two responses I hear from church members: he didn't do anything wrong (this is the "It's Emma's fault" argument) or, he made some mistakes, but that doesn't invalidate his prophetic calling. I always favored the latter one, myself.

[Jeanne]

Since Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage began only after the publication of the Book of Mormon, do you believe the Book of Mormon might still be the word of God but that Joseph "fell" as a prophet after its publication? or since finding out about Joseph Smith's plural marriages, do you now believe the Book of Mormon was never inspired of God in the first place?

If you don't believe the Book of Mormon was inspired of God, as a former believer do you have any theories about how the young and undereducated Joseph Smith could have produced such a monumental achievement?

Would God have a book inspired by Him..and then have a fallen prophet promote and sustain the book while he is in disobedience?

[KevinG]

I only have one person on ignore, and it's not you, and it's not because of sarcasm.

 

Seriously- sorry if I offended before. I can be snarky.

 

I am interested in your views on some of my thoughts that got buried under the fast pace of this thread.

[jkwilliams]

I guess I should have turned the other cheeky response.

 

Regarding your serious reply.  I am NOT a fan of Disneyesque history precisely because it does as much harm as it does good.  However I have a hard time faulting the brethren who wrote curricula from the early 1900s to the 1980s.  Partly because Sunday School is a place for faith promotion, not necessarily academic debates over the history of the church.  Secondly because there is so much written in opposition to the Saints, and I suspect the faithful were attempting to counter that with faith promotion.  In the broader American culture patriotism and faith promotion was a staple of education through the 1960s and even 1970s.   

 

Look at the Saints transformation from outcasts seeking their own country, to hyper-patriotic citizens lobbying for statehood.  What our culture becomes is often a reaction to the forces of our environment.  In 100 years one might wonder why the Saints were so obsessed with sex, drugs and rock 'n roll in all of their teachings.  That is because pornography and substance abuse is a big problem for us today.

 

I never said I blamed the people who wrote the curricula. Heck, I was one of them (I worked on the Gospel Doctrine, Young Men, and Primary manuals when I worked for the church). The manuals are meant to teach principles, not to provide exhaustive history, and it's foolish for anyone to expect much more than that. 

 

I think it's more of a cultural thing that developed after Joseph Smith's death. Martyrs tend to be mythologized, and Joseph and the beginnings of the church are no exception. I think it's absolutely healthy and necessary to move away from the hagiography and recognize Joseph's humanity and the sometimes messy aspects of church history. 

 

That bugaboo context comes in again. If you look at the practice of sealing early on, there were many platonic sealings to men, women, and family groups.  It was not until later when Wilford Woodruff conselled the Saints to be sealed to their own families that the practice of sealing became more synonymous with sealings of husbands to wives.

 

Again after reading Bushman and other sources I suspect some of those sealings did involve physical intimacy and some did not.

 

(I think you missed my last comment on the previous page.  I'm interested in your serious thoughts about that).

 

The only thing I would say is that I am not aware of any platonic sealings happening during Joseph Smith's lifetime. I doubt his relationship with Helen Kimball was sexual, but from what she said, I suspect he was sort of "holding her in reserve" if that's not too crude a way to put it. But again, opining on that is pure speculation, as we have no evidence one way or another.

Edited July 17, 2015 by jkwilliams

[KevinG]

 

I never said I blamed the people who wrote the curricula. Heck, I was one of them (I worked on the Gospel Doctrine, Young Men, and Primary manuals when I worked for the church). The manuals are meant to teach principles, not to provide exhaustive history, and it's foolish for anyone to expect much more than that. 

 

I think it's more of a cultural thing that developed after Joseph Smith's death. Martyrs tend to be mythologized, and Joseph and the beginnings of the church are no exception. I think it's absolutely healthy and necessary to move away from the hagiography and recognize Joseph's humanity and the sometimes messy aspects of church history. 

 

 

The only thing I would say is that I am not aware of any platonic sealings happening during Joseph Smith's lifetime. I doubt his relationship with Helen Kimball was sexual, but from what she said, I suspect he was sort of "holding her in reserve" if that's not too crude a way to put it. But again, opining on that is pure speculation, as we have no evidence one way or another.

 

 

I never said I blamed the people who wrote the curricula. Heck, I was one of them (I worked on the Gospel Doctrine, Young Men, and Primary manuals when I worked for the church). The manuals are meant to teach principles, not to provide exhaustive history, and it's foolish for anyone to expect much more than that. 

 

I think it's more of a cultural thing that developed after Joseph Smith's death. Martyrs tend to be mythologized, and Joseph and the beginnings of the church are no exception. I think it's absolutely healthy and necessary to move away from the hagiography and recognize Joseph's humanity and the sometimes messy aspects of church history. 

 

 

The only thing I would say is that I am not aware of any platonic sealings happening during Joseph Smith's lifetime. I doubt his relationship with Helen Kimball was sexual, but from what she said, I suspect he was sort of "holding her in reserve" if that's not too crude a way to put it. But again, opining on that is pure speculation, as we have no evidence one way or another.

Thanks for  your thoughts.  I appreciate your viewpoint.

 

One comment...  Once we can get to understanding Joseph Smith's humanity, then perhaps we can start understanding the humanity of those rascally old testament prophets.  

[Joshua Valentine]

Sigh.

 

Our exchange began with my response to your post:

I responded:

You asked why anyone thought it might be a reasonable argument [not why the poster thought it was a good argument in response to another specific poster].  I gave an example of how it could be a reasonable argument (when addressed to someone who …).

 

 From there, our mini-discussion went downhill, obscuring the fact that I actually agreed with what I believe was your underlying point -- that Biblical precedent I is no justification for polygamy. 

 

BTW, if two reasonably intelligent people can so fundamentally misunderstand each other about things they said to each other  within the last few hours  -- when both have a verbatim record of what was said -- perhaps we should exercise a little more humility when passing judgment on the private relationships of people who lived over 150 years ago.

http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=_xVDyi4Wprg

:-D

Just to keep things light

[Bobbieaware]

Would God have a book inspired by Him..and then have a fallen prophet promote and sustain the book while he is in disobedience?

Of course not. I was trying to get some insight as to how a former believer in the Book of Mormon accounts for the existence of the Book of Mormon, a work I consider to be nothing less than a full-blow miracle.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

That bugaboo context comes in again. If you look at the practice of sealing early on, there were many platonic sealings to men, women, and family groups.  It was not until later when Wilford Woodruff conselled the Saints to be sealed to their own families that the practice of sealing became more synonymous with sealings of husbands to wives.

 

Again after reading Bushman and other sources I suspect some of those sealings did involve physical intimacy and some did not.

 

(I think you missed my last comment on the previous page.  I'm interested in your serious thoughts about that).

 

I think you conflate the history. There have always been spousal sealings and sealings to parents. While Joseph Smith was alive, there were no sealings performed where children were sealed to parents (adopted or otherwise) as it was thought these needed to be done in the temple. Once the Nauvoo temple was completed Brigham Young started sealing children to parents and children to adopted parents. There was never any confusion as to what type of sealing it was. Parental sealings were always done to a couple. So if you were sealed / adopted to Brother Brigham, you would be sealed to Brigham and one of his wives, not just Brigham. 

[california boy]

One way to find out if the church has no problem with the history of polygamy would be to actually show Joseph smith with all of his wives

There is a famous statue on temple square of Joseph looking into the eyes of Emma. With this new promise of being more forthright about church history do you think the church would add his other 29 wives to the statue on temple square? Would any member here not support a change to more accurately portray the real history of the church? Would the church be willing to show a 14 year old among those wives? How about a plack explaining that some of these wives were already married but their husbands were sent on missions and while their husbands were gone their wives were also married to Joseph Smith?

What do you think the members reactions would be if such a change occurred. What would your reaction be. Are you in favor of a more accurate portrayal of Joseph Smiths married life? Why would the church only include Emma? Does this sound like an anti mornin idea? Or is it just a more truthful portrsyal of Mormon history

I have to say, the day I see that happen is the day I believe that the church portrays its history accurately to its members and the public

[jkwilliams]

What do you think the members reactions would be if such a change occurred. What would your reaction be. Are you in favor of a more accurate portrayal of Joseph Smiths married life? Why would the church only include Emma? Does this sound like an anti mornin idea? Or is it just a more truthful portrsyal of Mormon history

I have to say, the day I see that happen is the day I believe that the church portrays its history accurately to its members and the public

You just reminded me of an experience I had many years ago. I was elders quorum president, and most of the elders were young BYU students. They called this one guy to be Gospel Doctrine teacher. He had been home for his mission for about 6 months and married for just a few weeks. The subject was church history, and he gave a lesson about the translation of the Book of Mormon. He started talking about Joseph's use of the seer stone to find treasure and his later use of the stone to translate the Book of Mormon. The people in the class looked like they were ready to get a rope and string him up, and there were a number of angry, red faces and accusations that this kid was lying. He got really flustered and looked like a deer in the headlights. After the class, I went up to him and said, "You know, everything you said was true, but this might not be the place to share that information."

So, yes, the essay are out there, but I don't think the information has been absorbed by the membership at large yet.

[Calm]

 The only thing I would say is that I am not aware of any platonic sealings happening during Joseph Smith's lifetime.

Probably this one:

 

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/fanny-young/

 

Born November 8, 1787, to John and Abigail Howe Young in Hopkinton, Massachusetts, Fanny was an older sister of Brigham Young (b. 1801), future President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Fanny married Roswell Murry in 1832 and while he refused to join the Church, Fanny was baptized later that year. The Murrys moved to Kirtland, Ohio, and then to Missouri, and finally Nauvoo, Illinois, where Roswell died in 1839, leaving Fanny a single woman.

Beyond one recollection from Fanny’s brother Brigham Young, relatively little is known regarding her November 2, 1843, sealing to the Prophet. In 1873 Brigham reminisced:

I recollect a sister conversing with Joseph Smith on this subject [plural marriage]. She told him: “Now, don’t talk to me; when I get into the celestial kingdom, if I ever do get there, I shall request the privilege of being a ministering angel; that is the labor that I wish to perform. I don’t want any companion in that world; and if the Lord will make me a ministering angel, it is all I want.” Joseph said, “Sister, you talk very foolishly, you do not know what you will want.” He then said to me: “Here, brother Brigham, you seal this lady to me.” I sealed her to him. This was my own sister according to the flesh.1

Fanny was then fifty-six years of age. In 1870, one of Brigham’s plural wives, Harriet Cook, affirmed that Fanny Young’s sealing was for “time and eternity.”2 As a widow, conjugal relations were not disallowed from a religious standpoint. However, there is no indication that sexual relations were contemplated or experienced by the participants. The union was created to fulfill D&C 132:16–17 in giving Fanny an eternal spouse. Todd Compton observed that this sealing “shows how casual and unromantic polygamy could be.”3

Helen Mar Kimball remembered:

Aunt Fanny was a true Saint, and was beloved by all who had the pleasure of her acquaintance; her sympathies were always exercised for the poor and distressed. She was agreeable society for old or young and many an evening her young acquaintances would gather at her house to hear her sing or relate the “Scottish Chiefs,” “Children of the Abbey,” and other like tales, which she could do as I never heard anyone else. She had been a great reader; and I was named by her after the Scottish Lady, Helen Mar.

The Youngs were all gifted singers and when they sang together they made a grand choir. Aunt Fanny sang many beautiful songs, but the one I loved best was “Oft in the stilly night.” She had a clear melodious voice, and sang with such pathos, that all present would be affected to tears. The words are so touching and so expressive that I often repeat them as applicable to my own feelings.4

The November 2, 1843, sealing between Fanny Young and Joseph Smith represents the last documented plural marriage ever contracted by the Prophet. Whether Emma was informed is unknown. However, since the context of the sealing was to allow Fanny to have a husband in “the celestial kingdom,” it probably would not have been a great concern to Emma.

Fanny Young Murray migrated to Utah and died in 1859 in full faith.

 

[jkwilliams]

Probably this one:

I thought of Fanny Young, but I don't think we can say one way or another. But yes, she's the best possible example.

[Calm]

Just came across a likely better example:
 

Regardless, Ruth Vose’s sealing to Joseph Smith is important among all of the Prophet’s plural marriages to legally married women because it is documented to have been “for eternity” only, not “time and eternity” and therefore did not include sexual relations.

Within the research papers of Andrew Jenson, author of the 1887 Historical Record article on Joseph Smith’s plural wives, is the following statement:

\Sister Ruth/ Mrs. Sayers was married in her youth to Mr. Edward Sayers, a thoroughly practical horticulturist and florist, and though he was not a member of the Church, yet he willingly joined his fortune with her and they reached Nauvoo together some time in the year 1841;

While there the strongest affection sprang up between the Prophet Joseph and Mr. Sayers. The latter not attaching much importance to \the/ theory of a future life insisted that his wife \Ruth/ should be sealed to the Prophet for eternity, as he himself should only claim [page2—the first 3 lines of which are written over illegible erasures] her in this life. She \was/ accordingly the sealed to the Prophet in Emma Smith’s presence and thus were became numbered among the Prophets plural wives. She however \though she/ \continued to live with Mr. Sayers / remained with her husband \until his death.

Another document corroborated that concerning Joseph’s plural sealing to Ruth Sayers: “Joseph did not pick that woman. She went to see whether she should marry her husband for eternity.”

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/ruth-vose/

[jkwilliams]

Just came across a likely better example:

 

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/ruth-vose/

Without any citation, it's quite difficult to confirm that it was an eternity-only sealing.

[Calm]

Did you look at the link, the citation is there in the footnotes.  Quinn apparently agrees with Hales' finding.

Edited July 18, 2015 by calmoriah

[carbon dioxide]

This is how I feel as well. To be fair, and this is an important concession that I think all should be willing to make, there was a culture in the Church that seemed to think that anything from Church history that was unfamiliar, peculiar or uncomfortable was part of the anti-mormon lies. I think the Church culture has started to change, where people realize that Church history is a lot more nuanced than previously thought.

 

 

The Church leadership has made many mistakes over the years by not addressing issues and allowing outsiders the space to make the arguments without any response.  Even today it is still way behind the curve.  The essays only are a small part of what it needs to do and I think the Church will drag if feet on a number of things.  The Church spends a lot of resources in finding new members through missionary work but does not seem to be nearly as committed at retaining members that are struggling.  It would also be nice if Pres Monson did more media interviews and discussed matters more openly.  Maybe I got used to Pres Hinckley approach and Monson has either had health issues or just has a different style but it has has been very different since Hinckley has passed.

Edited July 18, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Tacenda]

I never said I blamed the people who wrote the curricula. Heck, I was one of them (I worked on the Gospel Doctrine, Young Men, and Primary manuals when I worked for the church). The manuals are meant to teach principles, not to provide exhaustive history, and it's foolish for anyone to expect much more than that. I think it's more of a cultural thing that developed after Joseph Smith's death. Martyrs tend to be mythologized, and Joseph and the beginnings of the church are no exception. I think it's absolutely healthy and necessary to move away from the hagiography and recognize Joseph's humanity and the sometimes messy aspects of church history. The only thing I would say is that I am not aware of any platonic sealings happening during Joseph Smith's lifetime. I doubt his relationship with Helen Kimball was sexual, but from what she said, I suspect he was sort of "holding her in reserve" if that's not too crude a way to put it. But again, opining on that is pure speculation, as we have no evidence one way or another.

I think it was wrong to do to a 14 yr. old, keep her from having a normal teenage life. And yes, some 14 yr. old's got married back in the old days sometimes, but weren't they monogamous? She got married, but didn't even consummate it. So she doesn't date or anything? The only out I give her parents for allowing this arranged non marriage marriage, is they believed Joseph and believed the Second Coming was near. ETA: Wait, she was too young to date, scratch that. Or that's today's standards that she'd be too young date. Edited July 18, 2015 by Tacenda

[Calm]

So she doesn't date or anything?

Well, it doesn't sound like she saw it as abnormal for at least part of it and had a lot of fun, but surely you know better that her life was a misery and undoubtedly when you meet her in the next life in all her glory you will be able to convince her it was all a waste of time.

 

During the winter of 1843, there were plenty of parties and balls, and many were held at the mansion. The last one that I attended there that winter was on Christmas Eve.

...[after this is the episode of the black legs which prevented her from attending a set of dances, but not all of them after marriage]

 

The first New Year's eve after the Prophet moved into the mansion, our choir, under the leadership of Stephen Goddard, to which I became a member some time previous, gave them a serenade.

We met at our usual place of practice, on the hill near the temple, and although the night was unfavorable, being dark and rainy, we, nothing daunted, started out between twelve and one o'clock, we struck up and sang the New Year's hymn. The inmates were highly gratified and the Prophet came out and invited us to come in; but being late, we declined. After singing one or two anthems he pronounced his blessing upon the orchestra and choir, which repaid the brethren and sisters for all their trouble.

William Cahoon, John Pack, Stephen Hale and wives, William Pitt, William Clayton, Jacob Hutchinson, James Standing and many more, too numerous to mention, were members of the choir and most of the brethren belonged to William Pitt's brass band. We enjoyed together many happy seasons, though of short duration.

Our music hall was built one block east of the temple but was not finished until after the death of the Prophet. Previous to that we held an occasional concert in the Masonic Hall which, according to history, was considered "the most substantial and best finished Masonic Temple in the western states."

We were not wanting for amusements, even in the midst of some of the most trying scenes. The Latter-day Saints seldom drooped or pined for their "Leeks and Onions," but adapted themselves to circumstances with an excellent grace.

Our first dramatic entertainments were given in the Nauvoo Masonic Hall in the spring of 1844, under the direction of Thomas A. Lyne and George J. Adams, the latter claiming Heber C. Kimball as his father in the gospel, took up his abode with us whenever he came to our city, was there during the summer of 1843, at which time my father being absent upon a mission, made it rather hard for my mother to get along, as I went to school and she was obliged to hire a woman to do the work, her own health being very poor and her baby sick, which he did not seem to realize as he never offered any recompense.

In the spring of 1844, during the dramatic season, he with his wife and sister stayed with us, but my father was at home which made quite a difference. I was just at the age to enjoy such amusements, which made time pass very agreeably. Miss Adams was a fine young lady and very gifted as an actress, in fact was quite a star, though a new beginner like all the rest, with the exception of Lyne, he spent much of his time at our house, as they were old friends, and he was a "Mormon." Mrs. Adams was a dignified and quite a distinguished looking woman, and made a fine appearance upon the stage, but she played only one night--took the part of the countess in the "Orphan of Geneva," and thought herself so disguised that no one would recognize her, but when she found that she was known she could not be prevailed upon to go on again, and as the play was to be repeated the next night, they were in a terrible dilemma, not knowing what to do as we had returned home, and it was then near midnight. One of them proposed my taking the part (Adams or Lyne), and the women and all set in flattering and teasing me to take it. But I was a timid girl of fifteen and frightfully bashful, and the idea of taking so dignified a part was to my mind utterly absurd, having only been upon the stage in two plays, first as one of the virgins in "Pizarro," and another simple part, but all my excuses were useless and I was fairly pressed into service.

 

Adams said encouragingly, "I'll help you out," and as Lyne was leaving he said, "Now study the part over good tonight and then retire and sleep on it, and you'll nearly know it in the morning," which direction I followed, and having a quick memory was able to repeat every word at the rehearsal, but when before an audience I was so frightened that I remembered very little. My wits nearly deserted me, but Adams was true to his promise and by his readiness assisted me to recover from my confusion. Though he was never up in his own part, he was never at a loss for a substitute in every emergency, but which was anything but pleasing to those who depended upon him for their cue. He was a very good actor, and J. Hatch, a young lawyer, uncle to President Abram Hatch of Heber City, was also good as well as Amasa Lyman and W. H. Folsom and others. But no part in "Pizarro" was better played than was the priest by Brigham Young. There was some good acting done--some so life-like that at times nearly the whole audience would be affected to tears. Joseph [smith] did not try to hide his feelings, but was seen to weep a number of times. Among our best comedians was Hiram B. Clawson, who I think was the youngest of the boys. That was forty years ago, and the scenes have been changing until but few are now left who took part in the first dramatic entertainments held in our beautiful city in 1845.

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/HWhitney.html

 

But now there seemed nothing in the way to prevent my seeing a circus. I was just putting on a white dress, I remember, as the caravan passed our house, the day being extremely warm but otherwise it was very pleasant. My youthful anticipations were at their height but alas for our earthly hopes, I seemed doomed to disappointment, as they had no more than spread their canvas before a sudden windstorm came and blew it to the ground, and the rain came down in torrents, so that they could not put it up again, and came very near losing some of their animals. So I had to wait until I was considerably older before my chances came to witness the circus, as we left the next February for the west, and I never again had this privilege until some years after we came to Salt Lake; and by that time my enthusiasm had considerably moderated, and I have long since become satiated with them.

After the storm was over, I accompanied father and others to see the animals, but the change in the weather obliged us to dress in thick clothing, and even mantles and overcoats were necessary. Thus we find life is one of disappointed hopes, until we have learned to restrain ourselves and become moderate in all things--then peace and pleasure is the natural result. . . .

 

Edited July 18, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Of course what really kept her from a normal teenage life was the murders of her family's church and government leaders and the attacks on the Saints afterwards.

 

I  was a passionate lover of music, and had so longed for the privilege of learning to play the piano, and this I enjoyed during the summer of 1845. I had an accomplished lady teacher who had received the gospel in London. My first lessons were given me on a small piano standing in a milliner shop which was owned by the Miss Grays, then living on Main Street. One of them is now Mrs. Rumel, who has a large millinery establishment on Main Street in this city. My teacher would often praise my aptness in learning and say to me, "You will go ahead of me, Miss Helen, for you have a voice to sing, which I never had." President Brigham Young had a small piano and invited me to come to his house and practice with his daughter Vilate, who, though younger than myself, had had previous advantages, but was rather indifferent, and he thought if I practiced with her she would take a greater interest. Their piano stood in Sister Young's room, and her health being very poor he proposed to have it brought to our house when the upper part was done. This pleased us both immensely. I never became weary of practicing until after I heard it was decided that we were to be broken up and move to the Rocky Mountains. Though the piano remained there through the winter, I felt no encouragement to continue taking lessons, though father tried to stimulate me to go on, and said, to encourage me, that they should have the necessary material taken to manufacture pianos and I should have one, but I knew that I would forget it all; and we little thought of its being so long before we got to our destination.

 

 

And it would see her previous existence did not stop her romantic heart or efforts:

 

When Horace returned to Nauvoo he found that a year or more had wrought great changes, not only by the death of Joseph and Hyrum, but other friends had passed away--numbers were married and others had grown up until he could hardly recognize them, and among the most noticeable was myself, which fact his looks and words expressed the first morning after his return, as he called to give us, among other old neighbors, a friendly shake of the hand. I was not yet sixteen, and though the feeling between us then could not rationally be called love, it was something akin to it, admiration, which only needed time and acquaintance to mature. I was considerably tinctured with romance and entertained the bright hope that I had already experienced my most bitter portion of the realities of life. His mother and sister were pleased with the idea of our union, and the latter had early expressed herself to that effect. 

Edited July 18, 2015 by calmoriah