Eternity Only Sealings?

[T-Shirt]

From what I can tell the Church performed Eternity Only sealings until sometime between 1949 and 1951.  Here are two quotes to show where I get this information.  The first is a First Presidency letter from 1949 and the second comes from a book by John A. Widtsoe in 1951:

 

Quote

 

Heretofore, to wit on June 30, 1941, June 27, 1941, August 17, 1942, and January 31, 1949, we have communicated with you and issued instructions concerning the granting of temple recommends for couples to be married in our temples for time, or for time and eternity, or for eternity only, with reference to the necessity or non-necessity of securing certificates of serological tests by the persons to whom the recommends are to be issued.

1949-February 28-Original circular letter, L.D.S. Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah.

 

Quote

 

It is also possible, though the Church does not now permit it, to seal two living persons for eternity only, with no association on earth.

Joseph Smith; Seeker after Truth, Prophet of God - JOHN A. WIDTSOE – 1951

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by T-Shirt

[JulieM]

Here's some info I found on where the eternity only info came from for the essays:

The essay states that "evidence indicates that Joseph Smith participated in both types of sealings." The footnote for this claim points to the work of Brian Hales. 

Brian Hales' website points to the 1887 research notes of church historian Andrew Jensen (which Hales states were recently discovered). These notes were from an interview that Jensen had with an unidentified Nauvoo polygamist (likely Eliza R. Snow or Malissa Lott). The conversation centered on the polyandrous wife Ruth Vose Sayers. The notes indicate that Ruth Sayers' first husband, Edward Sayers (a non-member), liked joseph and suggested that his wife be sealed to joseph for eternity (as Edward didn't place much importance on the concept of a future life).

Hales then asserts that any of Joseph's plural marriages, where sex cannot be documented, could have been eternity only sealings. This includes 11 of the 14 sealings to women with legal husbands. Hales is also clear to define "eternity only" sealings as those "that begin at death and are without sexual relations on earth." 

Does any other evidence exist, beyond the 1887 Jensen notes, that support that joseph considered some of his marriages as "eternity only" (which are not sexual, according to hales)? Do we have any record of joseph addressing this? Are there any records of sealings that distinguish between "time and eternity" and "eternity only?"

[hope_for_things]

44 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. 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

I think Dan Vogel's recent videos on this very topic make a pretty compelling case for sexual polyandry with Sylvia Sessions Lyon, I wonder if you've had a chance to listen to them.  Its a three part series, but if I remember correctly, part 1 talks about the Sylvia scenario at length.  

 

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Here's some info I found on where the eternity only info came from for the essays:

The essay states that "evidence indicates that Joseph Smith participated in both types of sealings." The footnote for this claim points to the work of Brian Hales. 

Brian Hales' website points to the 1887 research notes of church historian Andrew Jensen (which Hales states were recently discovered). These notes were from an interview that Jensen had with an unidentified Nauvoo polygamist (likely Eliza R. Snow or Malissa Lott). The conversation centered on the polyandrous wife Ruth Vose Sayers. The notes indicate that Ruth Sayers' first husband, Edward Sayers (a non-member), liked joseph and suggested that his wife be sealed to joseph for eternity (as Edward didn't place much importance on the concept of a future life).

Hales then asserts that any of Joseph's plural marriages, where sex cannot be documented, could have been eternity only sealings. This includes 11 of the 14 sealings to women with legal husbands. Hales is also clear to define "eternity only" sealings as those "that begin at death and are without sexual relations on earth." 

Does any other evidence exist, beyond the 1887 Jensen notes, that support that joseph considered some of his marriages as "eternity only" (which are not sexual, according to hales)? Do we have any record of joseph addressing this? Are there any records of sealings that distinguish between "time and eternity" and "eternity only?"

JulieM,

If you are interested in this subject you've should check out that link to the Dan Vogel videos, they are all quite recent, released in the past 3 months and he goes into detail on this very subject.  I like that he challenges many of Brian Hales assumptions.  For example, I find it hard to believe when Brian says that wherever we don't have documented evidence of sexual relations that we should assume eternity only, this makes no sense to me whatsoever.  I can't remember what exactly Dan says about the Ruth Vose Sayers and Edward Sayers incident, but I remember he disagree's with Brian's interpretation, I'll try and re-listen to these when I have some time and see what I can find, but I think you'll find them interesting.  

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

From what I can tell the Church performed Eternity Only sealings until sometime between 1949 and 1951.  Here are two quotes to show where I get this information.  The first is First Presidency letter from 1949 and the second comes from a book by John A. Widstoe in 1951:

That's just seems so odd doesn't it?  Were they still practicing polyandry that late (or is there another reason for eternity only sealings)?

Edited February 8, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

JulieM,

If you are interested in this subject you've should check out that link to the Dan Vogel videos, they are all quite recent, released in the past 3 months and he goes into detail on this very subject.  I like that he challenges many of Brian Hales assumptions.  For example, I find it hard to believe when Brian says that wherever we don't have documented evidence of sexual relations that we should assume eternity only, this makes no sense to me whatsoever.  I can't remember what exactly Dan says about the Ruth Vose Sayers and Edward Sayers incident, but I remember he disagree's with Brian's interpretation, I'll try and re-listen to these when I have some time and see what I can find, but I think you'll find them interesting.  

Thanks!  I'll take a look at those too as they look really interesting.  I'd be interested in what he said about Ruth Vose Sayers.

[JAHS]

47 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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.

In an 1898 interview with RLDS elder John W. Wight,  Zina Huntington provided responses regarding the type of sealing she experienced with the Prophet

Q. “Then it is a fact, Mrs. [Zina] Young, is it not, that you married Mr. Smith at the same time you were married to Mr. [Henry] Jacobs?”
A. “What right have you to ask such questions? I was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity.” 

Q. “Mrs. Young, you claim, I believe, that you were not married to him for time?”
A. “For eternity. I was married to Mr. Jacobs, but the marriage was unhappy and we parted.”…

(Wight interview, “Evidence from Zina D. Huntington Young,” Saints Herald, January 11, 1905, 29)

Here are some research noes by an Andrew Jenson’s written in 1887 as he was interviewing an unidentified Nauvoo polygamist:

"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 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.
(Ruth Vose Sayers, Draft biographical sketch,” Document 5, Andrew Jenson Papers (ca. 1871-1942)

I don't think there are any recordings of the exact wording of these for "eternity only" ceremonies.

 

[T-Shirt]

43 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That's just seems so odd doesn't it?  Were they still practicing polyandry that late (or is there another reason for eternity only sealings)?

I don't think it is necessarily odd, however, I don't think this type of sealing was common.  I can  imagine that it was possible for women, who were married to non-members, to be granted permission to be sealed to someone for eternity only, rather than get a divorce from an otherwise faithful husband.  Or perhaps a widow of a non-member who didn't want to marry again in mortality being sealed to someone for eternity only.  Regardless, I am not surprised that the Church eventually discontinued the practice.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think Dan Vogel's recent videos on this very topic make a pretty compelling case for sexual polyandry with Sylvia Sessions Lyon, I wonder if you've had a chance to listen to them.  Its a three part series, but if I remember correctly, part 1 talks about the Sylvia scenario at length.

I have listened to that presentation before. Vogel leaves out something that you seem to have missed in my post. The fact that Sylvia was sealed to Joseph secretly in 1842 during a time her husband was not in good standing with the church, then publicly in 1844, after Joseph's death. Vogel only talks about the 1842 sealing, and as if it were widely known. Vogel provides no new evidence for his theories. If you will read the affidavit from Josephine, Patty's words were that she Josephine was Joseph's daughter by virtue of the sealing that had taken place in 1842. Up until hear deathbed revelation, none of her other children had any idea that Josephine was born under the covenant.

 

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

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.

Julie, is this the quote of which you are speaking?

"

 Mother had often spoken of her "special sealing" to the Prophet Joseph Smith, and especially was concerned, when she saw my sister, Martha and Dell and their nine children falling away from the Church. She said since Perry had only returned once to Utah, after he left to go to Iowa to be educated, that I was the only one left that had been born under the covenant of that sealing"

Of course, Josephine was alive and well, living in Utah at that time. It would seem that when Patty was speaking of her "special sealing" she was speaking of the 1844 sealing which had been done publicly.

Glenn

 

[Bob Crockett]

It is hard to say if Joseph Smith had relations with the women who submitted affidavits for the Church's Temple Lot Case.  The incentives to say there were relations would have been extremely high, and the affidavits are couched in Victorian vagary.  

[JulieM]

23 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Julie, is this the quote of which you are speaking?

"

 Mother had often spoken of her "special sealing" to the Prophet Joseph Smith, and especially was concerned, when she saw my sister, Martha and Dell and their nine children falling away from the Church. She said since Perry had only returned once to Utah, after he left to go to Iowa to be educated, that I was the only one left that had been born under the covenant of that sealing"

Phebe was the "only one left" in the church of her full siblings (the two she specifically mentions in the quote...Martha & Dell....puts what she is stating in context).  

Iirc, Josephine was not a full sibling, was she?

Why do you continue to say that Sylvia kept her sealing a secret when Phebe states that her Mother spoke often about her special sealing to the Prophet Joseph?  Do you think she was referring to a different sealing?  

Edited February 9, 2017 by JulieM

[T-Shirt]

24 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Phebe was the "only one left" in the church of her full siblings (the two she specifically mentions in the quote...Martha & Dell....puts what she is stating in context).  

Iirc, Josephine was not a full sibling, was she?

Why do you continue to say that Sylvia kept her sealing a secret when Phebe states that her Mother spoke often about her special sealing to Joseph?  Do you think she was referring to a different sealing?  

Let me see if I can clarify what Glenn is saying.  Sylvia was sealed to Joseph when he was alive in either 1842 or 1843.  Due to the climate at the time, this sealing was done very secretly as were many of Joseph's sealings.  According to Todd Compton, Sylvia was again sealed to Joseph after his death, with a proxy standing in for Joseph.  I don't know why this was done, but it was fairly common for these sealings to have been repeated, by proxy, after Joseph's death.  This sealing, by proxy after Joseph's death, is the one that was more publicly known.  All of Sylvia's children after this point would have been sealed to Joseph Smith.  Because the original sealing was kept secret, I assume because Joseph was still living and Sylvia was still married to Mr. Lyons, it was never spoken of and people assumed that Josephine was not born in the covenant.  At her death, Sylvia wanted Josephine to know that she, too, was sealed to Joseph along with her siblings.  The sealing that she often spoke of was the proxy sealing that took place after Joseph's death.  This makes perfect sense to me and, actually fits the evidence better, in my opinion, than thinking Sylvia had relations with both men and Sylvia assumed that Josephine was Joseph's biological child. How would she know?

Edited February 9, 2017 by T-Shirt

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

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?)

 

I don't fight it but I will fight against the default idea that if someone is sealed or married, they MUST have marital relations.  Its as though unless one can prove it did not happen we must assume that it did. 

[juliann]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

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?)

 

Creating sketchy categories of eternal vs time was done, I believe, to avoid what I think is a few cases of obvious polyandry. Some have unfortunately made this a matter of Joseph's character and twist evidence into pretzels to keep him "pure."  It gets so silly that it is demanded a woman be living with both men before it can be called polyandry when that was never a requirement for polygyny (and when polygamy had not even been disclosed to the membership.) The downside is, of course, that if only one polyandrous relationship is clear (and I think it is), they are then caught in their own formula and have proved JS to have a lack of character. For the life of me, I do not understand what they think they are doing.

Ulrich states in her new book, A House Full of Females, that pregnancies (the only foolproof method of proving anything)  only prove what they were doing, not what they weren't doing. Merely declaring a marriage as "eternal" only and then pushing the burden of proof onto those who are not redefining the meaning of marriage would not be accepted in any other circumstance. 

 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't fight it but I will fight against the default idea that if someone is sealed or married, they MUST have marital relations.  Its as though unless one can prove it did not happen we must assume that it did. 

 Considering that a marriage without consummation is grounds for annulment....  

Wouldn't it just be more practical to create a new word for this if you want to change the definition of marriage?

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

I have listened to that presentation before. Vogel leaves out something that you seem to have missed in my post. The fact that Sylvia was sealed to Joseph secretly in 1842 during a time her husband was not in good standing with the church, then publicly in 1844, after Joseph's death. Vogel only talks about the 1842 sealing, and as if it were widely known. Vogel provides no new evidence for his theories. If you will read the affidavit from Josephine, Patty's words were that she Josephine was Joseph's daughter by virtue of the sealing that had taken place in 1842. Up until hear deathbed revelation, none of her other children had any idea that Josephine was born under the covenant.

 

I think you misinterpreted Dan Vogel in the video.  Let me summarize as I just listened to it again.  

Windsor marries Sylvia in 1838. 

Joseph Smith polyandrously marries Sylvia in February 1842 in a secret sealing ceremony.  

Here is the 1915 statement by Josephine about what her mother Sylvia said (not Patty, I think you got her mixed up with her Mother). "Just prior to my mothers death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days on earth were about numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and from all others but which she now desired to communicate to me.  She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church.  She also told me that she was sealed to the Prophet about the same time that Zina D. Huntington and Eliza R. Snow were thus sealed.  In conclusion mother told me not to make her statement to me too public as it might cause trouble and arouse unpleasant curiousity.  I have followed her advice and I am relating the facts to-day practically the first time, responding to the request or desire of one of the assistant Church Historians."  

Vogel talks about how a couple apologists suggest that this sealing was just a spiritual sealing and that Josephine would not have been understood to be a biological daughter of Joseph Smith, but then Vogel points out that even Brian Hales rejected this interpretation in his 2013 series on Polygamy.  I did just check Brian's web site an he has changed interpretation to allow for a spiritual sealing possibility.  One problem with Hales interpretation is that he's significantly changed his interpretation about this specific polyandrously marriage to try and fit his theory about eternity only sealings and this idea that Joseph never practiced sexual polyandry.  

Is this what you are suggesting, that the statement by Josephine does not tell us that Sylvia believed her daughter to be the biological daughter of Joseph Smith?  I think the statement of Josephine is pretty clear that she understood herself to be the biological daughter of Joseph Smith.  

 

 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

Let me see if I can clarify what Glenn is saying.  Sylvia was sealed to Joseph when he was alive in either 1842 or 1843.  Due to the climate at the time, this sealing was done very secretly as were many of Joseph's sealings.  According to Todd Compton, Sylvia was again sealed to Joseph after his death, with a proxy standing in for Joseph.  I don't know why this was done, but it was fairly common for these sealings to have been repeated, by proxy, after Joseph's death.  This sealing, by proxy after Joseph's death, is the one that was more publicly known.  All of Sylvia's children after this point would have been sealed to Joseph Smith.  Because the original sealing was kept secret, I assume because Joseph was still living and Sylvia was still married to Mr. Lyons, it was never spoken of and people assumed that Josephine was not born in the covenant.  At her death, Sylvia wanted Josephine to know that she, too, was sealed to Joseph along with her siblings.  The sealing that she often spoke of was the proxy sealing that took place after Joseph's death.  This makes perfect sense to me and, actually fits the evidence better, in my opinion, than thinking Sylvia had relations with both men and Sylvia assumed that Josephine was Joseph's biological child. How would she know?

Exactly! She didn't know who was the father, obviously!  I don't think what that means needs to be explained. The only way to wiggle out of this is to consider her a liar or mentally ill. The DNA findings have pulled the rug out from under the excuses that have been spun to avoid the indisputable fact that Sylvia thought a man other than her legal husband fathered her child.  

The real question is....why does this matter so much?

  

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

  I did just check Brian's web site an he has changed interpretation to allow for a spiritual sealing possibility.  One problem with Hales interpretation is that he's significantly changed his interpretation about this specific polyandrously marriage to try and fit his theory about eternity only sealings and this idea that Joseph never practiced sexual polyandry.  

  

 

 

Just guessing, but I bet the change coincided with the inconvenient DNA finding. The go-to excuse has always been that the women were actually living with their husbands but only having marital relations with the second husband. I actually find even the thought of sudden celibacy between a co-habiting married couple laughable.  

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

Let me see if I can clarify what Glenn is saying.  Sylvia was sealed to Joseph when he was alive in either 1842 or 1843.  Due to the climate at the time, this sealing was done very secretly as were many of Joseph's sealings.  According to Todd Compton, Sylvia was again sealed to Joseph after his death, with a proxy standing in for Joseph.  I don't know why this was done, but it was fairly common for these sealings to have been repeated, by proxy, after Joseph's death.  This sealing, by proxy after Joseph's death, is the one that was more publicly known.  All of Sylvia's children after this point would have been sealed to Joseph Smith.  Because the original sealing was kept secret, I assume because Joseph was still living and Sylvia was still married to Mr. Lyons, it was never spoken of and people assumed that Josephine was not born in the covenant.  At her death, Sylvia wanted Josephine to know that she, too, was sealed to Joseph along with her siblings.  The sealing that she often spoke of was the proxy sealing that took place after Joseph's death.  This makes perfect sense to me and, actually fits the evidence better, in my opinion, than thinking Sylvia had relations with both men and Sylvia assumed that Josephine was Joseph's biological child. How would she know?

That's all wishful thinking and speculation.  I understand why you want to contort and twist the most logical explanation for what transpired and for what Sylvia told Josephine on her death bed.  But, I think it's much more likely that the "special sealing to the Prophet Joseph" Sylvia spoke often of was the actual sealing when he was living, not the fake one (that was unnecessary since she was already sealed to him) that was done after Joseph's death. 

It also makes much more sense that the secret no one else knew, and the one that Sylvia waited until she was dying to tell Josephine was that she believed Joseph was Josephine's physical Father, not that he was her spiritual Father.

Why would Sylvia tell Josephine not to tell anyone about her belief that she was Joseph's daughter if it was just that she was his spiritual daughter?  She told her it may cause trouble and arouse unpleasant curiosity.  You think that would happen in 1882 if the "secret" was just that her Mother had been sealed to Joseph?  

Edited February 9, 2017 by JulieM

[rodheadlee]

Um, so which one of you is going to ask Joseph Smith if he had sex with his wives? 

Edited February 9, 2017 by rodheadlee

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Um, so which one of you is going to ask Joseph Smith if he had sex with his wives? 

So ask the wives.....it's high time we started paying attention to them.

[JulieM]

24 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Um, so which one of you is going to ask Joseph Smith if he had sex with his wives? 

Why do you care so much if he did or didn't?

And, answer this question:

Why are you just fine with Brigham (another Prophet) and other leaders having relations with their plural wives but not fine if Joseph did?  

[hope_for_things]

56 minutes ago, juliann said:

Just guessing, but I bet the change coincided with the inconvenient DNA finding. The go-to excuse has always been that the women were actually living with their husbands but only having marital relations with the second husband. I actually find even the thought of sudden celibacy between a co-habiting married couple laughable.  

Yes, exactly right.  

[juliann]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think Dan Vogel's recent videos on this very topic make a pretty compelling case for sexual polyandry with Sylvia Sessions Lyon, I wonder if you've had a chance to listen to them.  Its a three part series, but if I remember correctly, part 1 talks about the Sylvia scenario at length.  

 

He would be a lot more compelling if he would rein in the snark and "apologist" bashing, especially since Hales position is not held by all apologists, as is clear here. He mentions Hales so often it sounds like a feud. And Hales does deserve credit for pulling so much information together and starting a discussion. 

Vogel does point out holes in a conclusion driven narrative that tries to rescue JS from polyandry, however, so I have to give him that.