Eternity Only Sealings?

[JulieM]

We had a joint RS/Priesthood lesson this past Sunday on the polygamy essay.  It was a good lesson for the most part (the instructor stuck to what was in the essay plus they gave a little more information).

But, they stated that nearly all of Joseph's plural marriages were eternity only sealings so there were no physical relations for those (and most especially for those involving women married to other men).  

The instructor also said that for sure the sealing to Helen Mar Kimball was for eternity only.

So my questions are, what evidence is there that this is true?  Do we have statements from Joseph specifying the difference between eternity only sealings vs. time and eternity sealings?

[Jane_Doe]

The obvious evidence for lack of sexual relations is the lack of Joseph's children by other wives.  He was obviously a fertile man (he and Emma had many children), but to my knowledge no genetic test has shown him fathering any other children with other women.

[stemelbow]

42 minutes ago, JulieM said:

We had a joint RS/Priesthood lesson this past Sunday on the polygamy essay.  It was a good lesson for the most part (the instructor stuck to what was in the essay plus they gave a little more information).

But, they stated that nearly all of Joseph's plural marriages were eternity only sealings so there were no physical relations for those (and most especially for those involving women married to other men).  

The instructor also said that for sure the sealing to Helen Mar Kimball was for eternity only.

So my questions are, what evidence is there that this is true?  Do we have statements from Joseph specifying the difference between eternity only sealings vs. time and eternity sealings?

I think it is wrong to say nearly all of Joseph's plural marriages did not involve sex.  But what can you do?  We each like to word things our own way.

I really question the notion that eternity only means they didn't have sex.  I worry that's a Brian Hales invention based on a poem by Helen Mar Kimball.  But, that also doesn't mean I'd suggest Joseph had sex with Helen, either.  Not sure about that.  I don't think there is anything extant from Joseph that defined an eternity only sealing as a marriage in which the participators did not have sex. 

The best evidence for Joseph having sex with some of his wives is some testified, after he died, that they did have sex, though. 

[readstoomuch]

That is the big question.  Is there really any proof about categories of plural marriage? Time, time/eternity and eternity only.  There are examples and implications that there were these categories, but as far as I know no one spelled it all out in some type of document or written format.  

[JAHS]

The argument can be made that at least some of the sealings were for eternity only since some women were sealed to Joseph after he died. Even some men had themselves sealed to him also (referred to as the law of adoption).
Critics will bring up obscure unclear statements that "hint" that they were real marriages that were consummated, but no obvious clear record of this. Some will argue that if one of the reasons for polygamy was to raise up seed as stated in the book of Mormon (Jacob 2:30), why would they not have been real marriages? But then you have the issue of no offspring from any of those sealings. 

[bluebell]

It sounds like the instructor overstated their position.  There isn't proof that the sealings were ever consummated and some evidence the suggests most weren't, but that's different than saying that it's a fact that the marriages were only for eternity.

[JulieM]

24 minutes ago, readstoomuch said:

That is the big question.  Is there really any proof about categories of plural marriage? Time, time/eternity and eternity only.  There are examples and implications that there were these categories, but as far as I know no one spelled it all out in some type of document or written format.  

The first I see it spelled out defining a specific different sealing is when men married Joseph's plural wives after he died (Brigham Young and others did this). They were sealed for "time only".

So, I was just wondering if there were any such statements regarding "eternity only" sealings.

I think it's been pretty well established that Joseph had marital relations with at least some of his plural wives (and why shouldn't he have as other men did too with their plural wives?).  The no children argument doesn't mean no relations, IMO.

I really don't want this to turn into a discussion about the sex involved though.  I mainly wanted any evidence for eternity only sealings.

(Thanks for all the responses and help too!)

Edited February 8, 2017 by JulieM

[JAHS]

I think we can only say for relative certainty that the polyandrous sealings were meant for eternity only, because the women Joseph was sealed to continued to live with their current husbands and only had children by them.
There really isn't much evidence that can be referred to that other sealings were only meant for eternity. Probably some were and some weren't. They would have to be considered on  a case by case basis.

 

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I think we can only say for relative certainty that the polyandrous sealings were meant for eternity only, because the women Joseph was sealed to continued to live with their current husbands and only had children by them.

I don't think you can use the word "certainty" unless there are records that state "eternity only" or statements specifying this.  Otherwise it's just speculation.

The sealing could have been for time and eternity even if Joseph didn't physically live with his plural wives.

I'm hoping JLHPROF will know what was written or stated.

Edited February 8, 2017 by JulieM

[Gray]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

We had a joint RS/Priesthood lesson this past Sunday on the polygamy essay.  It was a good lesson for the most part (the instructor stuck to what was in the essay plus they gave a little more information).

But, they stated that nearly all of Joseph's plural marriages were eternity only sealings so there were no physical relations for those (and most especially for those involving women married to other men).  

The instructor also said that for sure the sealing to Helen Mar Kimball was for eternity only.

So my questions are, what evidence is there that this is true?  Do we have statements from Joseph specifying the difference between eternity only sealings vs. time and eternity sealings?

As far as I'm aware, they're really making an argument from silence. We don't know for sure that Joseph had relations with all his wives, so the hopeful assumption is that he did not. 

Sylvia Sessions Lyon is good evidence for sexual polyandry, though. She believed that Joseph Smith was the father of her daughter Josephine, but DNA testing has confirmed that Josephine's father was Sylvia's other husband, Windsor. That indicates she was concurrently having relations with both men. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

That indicates she was concurrently having relations with both men. 

I think it is definitely evidence to support that assertion, but i'm wary of saying that it indicates or implies it.  That's too close to 'proves it' for my comfort.  (Not that whether or not JS and her had sexual relations affects my comfort.)

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

As far as I'm aware, they're really making an argument from silence. We don't know for sure that Joseph had relations with all his wives, so the hopeful assumption is that he did not. 

Sylvia Sessions Lyon is good evidence for sexual polyandry, though. She believed that Joseph Smith was the father of her daughter Josephine, but DNA testing has confirmed that Josephine's father was Sylvia's other husband, Windsor. That indicates she was concurrently having relations with both men. 

I agree.

I really don't understand why some members fight to believe Joseph didn't have marital relations with at least some of his wives.  They were his wives.

Why the different standard for Joseph?  Did he live the principle in a different manner than all the other men who lived it?  (Including those who lived it in Nauvoo when Joseph was still alive...wouldn't he have called them to repentance if they were living it incorrectly?)

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by JulieM

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it is definitely evidence to support that assertion, but i'm wary of saying that it indicates or implies it.  That's too close to 'proves it' for my comfort.  (Not that whether or not JS and her had sexual relations affects my comfort.)

I think it's the conclusion that best accounts for the evidence, with an asterisk*

*I'm not a historian of the 19th century Mormon movement. 

[JAHS]

28 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I don't think you can use the word "certainty" unless there are records that state "eternity only" or statements specifying this.  Otherwise it's just speculation.

The sealing could have been for time and eternity even if Joseph didn't physically live with his plural wives.

I'm hoping JLHPROF will know what was written or stated.

The FAIR Mormon website lists 14 women that Joseph was sealed to and some of them state that it was for "eternity only". 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Was_Joseph_Smith_sealed_or_married_to_other_men's_wives_without_the_knowledge_or_consent_of_their_husband%3F

You might want to ask them how they got the information. I know I have seen journal entries or letters where some of them were meant to be for eternity only. 
Here's another link:

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/sexuality-2/

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The FAIR Mormon website lists 14 women that Joseph was sealed to and some of them state that it was for "eternity only". 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Was_Joseph_Smith_sealed_or_married_to_other_men's_wives_without_the_knowledge_or_consent_of_their_husband%3F

You might want to ask them how they got the information. I know I have seen journal entries or letters where some of them were meant to be for eternity only. 
Here's another link:

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/sexuality-2/

Thanks JAHS!

I'll read these.

Edited February 8, 2017 by JulieM

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

We had a joint RS/Priesthood lesson this past Sunday on the polygamy essay.  It was a good lesson for the most part (the instructor stuck to what was in the essay plus they gave a little more information).

But, they stated that nearly all of Joseph's plural marriages were eternity only sealings so there were no physical relations for those (and most especially for those involving women married to other men).  

The instructor also said that for sure the sealing to Helen Mar Kimball was for eternity only.

So my questions are, what evidence is there that this is true?  Do we have statements from Joseph specifying the difference between eternity only sealings vs. time and eternity sealings?

Sounds like they are taking cue's from Brian Hales work primarily, and we know he was a key contributor in the essays as well.  This eternity only sealings argument is controversial, I don't know many historians that agree that this was significant or that it even existed as a clear distinction in the Nauvoo time period.

I haven't seen any compelling evidence for Helen Mar Kimball to be an eternity only sealing, this is where the wording gets into the Brian Hales construction of things.  Brian's basically defining any marriages that weren't sexually consummated as eternity only marriages, but there isn't a clear distinction as I mentioned earlier.  I don't think we have any strong evidence that the Helen Mar marriage was consummated, that is the real item that's debated, but I don't see where we can rule it out either.

I think for most of the polygamy happening we should assume consumation, we have plenty of affidavits from plural wives that corroborate this and that is also an assumed condition of marriage and one of the specific purposes of plural marriage as defined in D&C 132, to raise up seed.    

[JulieM]

19 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The FAIR Mormon website lists 14 women that Joseph was sealed to and some of them state that it was for "eternity only". 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Was_Joseph_Smith_sealed_or_married_to_other_men's_wives_without_the_knowledge_or_consent_of_their_husband%3F

You might want to ask them how they got the information. I know I have seen journal entries or letters where some of them were meant to be for eternity only. 
Here's another link:

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/sexuality-2/

I see no sources cited on either of these (regarding the sealings being "eternity only").  They just state that they were.  Where are their sources?  I'd love to see them and read what led to that definitive conclusion.

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I see no sources cited on either of these (regarding the sealings being "eternity only").  They just state that they were.  Where are their sources?  I'd love to see them and read what led to that definitive conclusion.

Here's one example:

Joseph Smith marries Ruth Daggett Vose, age 32.  She is recorded by Andrew Jensen as being “eternity only”.  According to her Affidavit in 1869; Hyrum smith performed marriage;

https://books.google.com/books?id=lRcMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=Ruth+Daggett+Vose+age+marrying+Joseph&source=bl&ots=VVGdLPI5p2&sig=ONze9bIzy4YraNVzpSRYiulGSEQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VNxkVPyoD4iZjALlzoDgAQ&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Ruth Daggett Vose age marrying Joseph&f=false

There are others but it takes some searching. 

[JulieM]

55 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Here's one example:

Joseph Smith marries Ruth Daggett Vose, age 32.  She is recorded by Andrew Jensen as being “eternity only”.  According to her Affidavit in 1869; Hyrum smith performed marriage;

https://books.google.com/books?id=lRcMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=Ruth+Daggett+Vose+age+marrying+Joseph&source=bl&ots=VVGdLPI5p2&sig=ONze9bIzy4YraNVzpSRYiulGSEQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VNxkVPyoD4iZjALlzoDgAQ&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Ruth Daggett Vose age marrying Joseph&f=false

There are others but it takes some searching. 

I'm not seeing a source or even where it's stated this was an eternity only sealing (?).

Also, it disagrees with FairMormon regarding Ruth's husband having full knowledge and full consent for her to marry Joseph.

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

We had a joint RS/Priesthood lesson this past Sunday on the polygamy essay.  It was a good lesson for the most part (the instructor stuck to what was in the essay plus they gave a little more information).

But, they stated that nearly all of Joseph's plural marriages were eternity only sealings so there were no physical relations for those (and most especially for those involving women married to other men).  

The instructor also said that for sure the sealing to Helen Mar Kimball was for eternity only.

So my questions are, what evidence is there that this is true?  Do we have statements from Joseph specifying the difference between eternity only sealings vs. time and eternity sealings?

If the instructor didn't preface his statements with "I think..." or "It's possible..." then he seriously overstepped the bounds of the essay and the evidence.

Depending on how bold you are, the logical response would be to raise your hand and ask "If these sealings were for 'eternity only', then why did they need to be kept hidden from Emma, the Church, and the world?"

And if you're really bold, and since the instructor strayed far into speculative territory, you could ask how the marriage to Fanny Alger would have worked, since the sealing power hadn't been restored yet and such a temporal marriage would have been illegal under the laws of the land.  In what way could they be considered "married"?  (If they try to argue that such a marriage could be performed under the authority of the Priesthood, ask where the power to marry is given to a Priesthood office in the scriptures or any Church publication...?)

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

As far as I'm aware, they're really making an argument from silence. We don't know for sure that Joseph had relations with all his wives, so the hopeful assumption is that he did not. 

Sylvia Sessions Lyon is good evidence for sexual polyandry, though. She believed that Joseph Smith was the father of her daughter Josephine, but DNA testing has confirmed that Josephine's father was Sylvia's other husband, Windsor. That indicates she was concurrently having relations with both men. 

I do not think that a person can even say with any certainty that Sylvia Sessions Lyon is good evidence for sexual polyandry. Sylvia was sealed to Joseph on two separate occasions. The first one was not publicized and one which Sylvia kept secret and before Josephine was born. The other was after Joseph's death with Brigham Young standing in proxy, if I recall correctly. I believe this was noted "In Sacred Loneliness" by Todd Compton. Under the auspices of the second sealing Josephine would not have been born under the covenant. Under the auspices of the original sealing, which was something that Josephine did not know, she would have been born under the covenant.

I would have to agree with JulieM that we do not know with any certainty that any of the plural marriages were for eternity only, even the so called polyandrous ones.

I will dig up my references again if requested. This was hashed over not long ago.

Glenn

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I do not think that a person can even say with any certainty that Sylvia Sessions Lyon is good evidence for sexual polyandry. Sylvia was sealed to Joseph on two separate occasions. The first one was not publicized and one which Sylvia kept secret and before Josephine was born. 

Not according to Phebe (Josephine's sister and Sylvia's other daughter).  She wrote that her Mother had "spoken often of her special sealing to the Prophet Joseph".  So it was not a secret.

[JAHS]

49 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I'm not seeing a source or even where it's stated this was an eternity only sealing (?).

Also, it disagrees with FairMormon regarding Ruth's husband having full knowledge and full consent for her to marry Joseph.

In the Reed Smoot hearings of 1905 President Joseph F. Smith testified to the following:

In other words President Smith is saying that all three forms of marriage were conducted now in his time the same as formerly (when polygamy first stared), which included for eternity only. 

[JulieM]

35 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If the instructor didn't preface his statements with "I think..." or "It's possible..." then he seriously overstepped the bounds of the essay and the evidence.

Depending on how bold you are, the logical response would be to raise your hand and ask "If these sealings were for 'eternity only', then why did they need to be kept hidden from Emma, the Church, and the world?"

And if you're really bold, and since the instructor strayed far into speculative territory, you could ask how the marriage to Fanny Alger would have worked, since the sealing power hadn't been restored yet and such a temporal marriage would have been illegal under the laws of the land.  In what way could they be considered "married"?  (If they try to argue that such a marriage could be performed under the authority of the Priesthood, ask where the power to marry is given to a Priesthood office in the scriptures or any Church publication...?)

Those are really great questions (and I wish someone would have asked them).  I do know the instructor and if I get the chance I'll talk to them this Sunday and tell them I'd like their opinion on them.  I don't know if they'll give any answers though!

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

In the Reed Smoot hearings of 1905 President Joseph F. Smith testified to the following:

In other words President Smith is saying that all three forms of marriage were conducted now in his time the same as formerly (when polygamy first stared), which included for eternity only. 

Thanks for looking those up, JAHS!  So we know that type of sealing took place.  But we don't know which ones were eternity only, correct?  Is there a record somewhere that would specify?

And why would they have been performing eternity only sealings at the time that hearing took place (1903)?  I'm trying to think of a reason other than polyandry.

Edited February 8, 2017 by JulieM