Eternity Only Sealings?

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You are missing the critical issue.

It is not polygamy itself,  but that some of the marriages were to women who were already married, and whether there were intimate relations with those married women.  Was jS committing adultery or were these sealing only wives.

Why do you differentiate between polygamous sealings and polyandrous sealings regarding the question of adultery (he'd be committing adultery in both)?  You only have a problem with those possibly involving the woman committing adultery?

Edited February 9, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You are missing the critical issue.

It is not polygamy itself,  but that some of the marriages were to women who were already married, and whether there were intimate relations with those married women.  Was jS committing adultery or were these sealing only wives.

And I have quoted and shown many many times on this board that Joseph and the participants were of the belief that the legal/civil marriages had no real authority and were superceded by priesthood sealings.

So I go with their belief on the issue and don't feel any need to put your dualistic choice into play.  They were neither committing adultery OR necessarily sealing only.  At least, that's what the participants would have said.

They were not committing adultery because the wives were only married to Joseph by priesthood authority.
And that priesthood marriage could easily have been for time and eternity.

Edited February 9, 2017 by JLHPROF

[T-Shirt]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This has been a hotly debated question almost since sealings were introduced.
And I don't think an official answer from the Lord has been given.

So we are left to apply the best reason we can to the principles behind it.

1. We know that when a deceased husband's wife was resealed to someone for time the new husband was required to covenant that any offspring from that marriage would be delivered up to the eternal husband.  That is in several records and relates to a Levirate marriage.

2. Brigham Young clearly taught that children in the eternities would belong to the husband to whom the wife was sealed.  This by implication would mean that the children go with their biological mother in the next life.

I agree with this but I don't think you answered the right question which is this:

How are children treated who are born before a sealing takes place?

The answer is that a child is not sealed retroactively but would need to have a separate sealing performed, sealing them to the parents.  Otherwise they would be sealed to no one.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, T-Shirt said:

I agree with this but I don't think you answered the right question which is this:

How are children treated who are born before a sealing takes place?

The answer is that a child is not sealed retroactively but would need to have a separate sealing performed, sealing them to the parents.  Otherwise they would be sealed to no one.

Well of course.
Which is why so many participated in the Law of Adoption prior to Pres. Woodruff's change to prefer proxy family sealings.
Which still leaves a lot of members with living non-member parents wondering where they will end up.

[JAHS]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I can understand that.  I don't agree with those people, but I understand that.
I don't think we are viewing the marriages as Joseph and the other participants viewed them.  And until we do we are just putting our own bias on the relationship.
We say "polyandrous".  Did the participants consider it such?

Did they even know what the word "polyandrous" meant?       Did they even use that word back then?

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'm sure this was in play to some extent. But remember that the history we are comfortable with has come through male perspectives, even to the point that "families" were considered a valid counting method for participation in polygamy rather than counting the women as individuals. Now that more accounts are coming out, some of those male polygamists were also duds. It has really surprised me to see accounts of young girls willingly marrying older dirt poor men, knowing they were in for a life of poverty. We tend to measure polygamy through the lives of the elite only. 

True. And not all of the poor men were duds. In fact, to be dirt poor and to be able to convince multiple women to marry you had to speak to other intangibles (personality, qualities, etc.). My great-great-great-grandfather lost a leg as a widower with a young son in England. He was baptized, and he and his son immigrated to Nauvoo and crossed the plains. We still have his wooden leg in the family (here's yours truly at seven, with it).

He was a shoemaker by trade, and d-i-r-t poor. He was able to marry three wives (they all three and he all got along very well, and have positive impressions and experiences with polygamy, based on their diaries), but they even had to eat their seed potatoes one winter in Utah, they were so poor. How he managed to provide for the three families is a miracle. But, you're right that it wasn't only the wealthy elite who were involved with polygamy. My ancestor did have a burning testimony of the restored Gospel.

[Glenn101]

16 hours ago, juliann said:

This falls apart very quickly if Sylvia kept public knowledge secret until her deathbed. Again, the only out here is to consider her a liar or delusional. Or maybe just downright stupid.....

Juliann,

   What we know know was not publicized until much later. The public ceremony in 1844 was publicized. The 1842 ceremony was not.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

15 hours ago, JulieM said:

But it was Slyvia who is quoted and who is speaking specifically about those three children, it's not Phebe speaking.

And, if the second sealing was not a secret, then Josephine would have already known her Mother was sealed to Joseph and that he was her spiritual Father.   It makes no sense that this was the secret Sylvia revealed on her deathbed.

 

Except for the fact that Josephine was born on February 8th of 1944, prior to Joseph's death and prior to the second, public sealing. She would have not been born under the covenant if the 1842 sealing, the private sealing had not taken place.

Glenn

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Except for the fact that Josephine was born on February 8th of 1944, prior to Joseph's death and prior to the second, public sealing. She would have not been born under the covenant if the 1842 sealing, the private sealing had not taken place.

Glenn

Glenn,

I'd sincerely like to see what evidence or documentation you have to support that no one else knew (by 1882) that Sylvia had been sealed to Joseph prior to his death.  It might not have been publicized, but how do we know that at least some knew of it (especially those in Joseph's inner circle or at least the one who performed the sealing, etc.).

Do you know she'd told no one or that members weren't aware by then who Joseph was sealed to while he was alive?

I'm asking because I'm very interested to read what you've found to support your thoughts on this.

Thanks!

Edited February 9, 2017 by JulieM

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Brigham Young clearly taught that children in the eternities would belong to the husband to whom the wife was sealed.  This by implication would mean that the children go with their biological mother in the next life.

That may be true. I do not have handy any of Brigham's teachings on the subject, but I would be surprised if he taught that children that were born before a woman was sealed to a husband would be part of husband's family in eternity. I expect that he would have taught that any children that had been born prior to the sealing would have to be sealed to the husband in a separate ceremony.

Glenn

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

That may be true. I do not have handy any of Brigham's teachings on the subject, but I would be surprised if he taught that children that were born before a woman was sealed to a husband would be part of husband's family in eternity. I expect that he would have taught that any children that had been born prior to the sealing would have to be sealed to the husband in a separate ceremony.

Glenn

I agree, and already said so here -

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

First of all, it is not a matter of tallying up the score of various opinions.  Second of all, I have not dismissed any interpretation. I am simply pointing out the fact that there is more than one way to look at this.  There is significant evidence, in my opinion, that keeps getting glossed over that should not be ignored.

Josephine may or may not have thought she was the biological daughter of Joseph Smith, it doesn't really matter. What matters is what Sylvia meant, and frankly, we can't know this for sure.  I think both interpretations have merit, but as stated before, I will point out the other interpretation anytime someone claims the evidence "clearly" points to their favorite conclusion.

Meg Stout is a good example of someone who looks at all the data and comes up with vastly different interpretations that most historians bristle at.  I don't even think her approach should be given equal time to the approaches of other reasoned and professionally trained historians.  Not all opinions are equally valid on any subject. 

[cinepro]

21 hours ago, JAHS said:

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.

 

It's a glorious day when we can quote RLDS sources to argue that while Joseph may have practiced some sort of polygamy, it wasn't really polygamy-polygamy.  Just kind of "polygamy-lite."

[T-Shirt]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Meg Stout is a good example of someone who looks at all the data and comes up with vastly different interpretations that most historians bristle at.  I don't even think her approach should be given equal time to the approaches of other reasoned and professionally trained historians.  Not all opinions are equally valid on any subject. 

Wild speculation is rarely useful. Neither are predetermined conclusions combined with ignoring significant details.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Wild speculation is rarely useful. Neither are predetermined conclusions combined with ignoring significant details.

I agree

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

False dichotomy.
I choose that she was his wife, whether for time and eternity or eternal sealing only we do not know.
And if she was his wife for time then any relations whether they produced a child or not were legal and legitimate.
So I reject "sealing only" or "adulterer" as the only viable options.

You and I have very different views on morality -- we reside on two different planets in that regard.

Edited February 9, 2017 by cdowis

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You and I have very different views on morality -- we reside on two different planets in that regard.

Actually, it seems that we have very different views on what constitutes an authorized marriage covenant in the eyes of God.
Morality is not the issue here.
 

[Glenn101]

50 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Glenn,

I'd sincerely like to see what evidence or documentation you have to support that no one else knew (by 1882) that Sylvia had been sealed to Joseph prior to his death.  It might not have been publicized, but how do we know that at least some knew of it (especially those in Joseph's inner circle or at least the one who performed the sealing, etc.).

Do you know she'd told no one or that members weren't aware by then who Joseph was sealed to while he was alive?

I'm asking because I'm very interested to read what you've found to support your thoughts on this.

Thanks!

Julie,

  I did not say that I base my thoughts on the understanding that polygamy in Nauvoo was closely held knowledge. Joseph did not declare it from the pulpit, but on the contrary denied it, choosing his words very carefully. Instead, Joseph first broached the subject to people close to him. There is not one particular document that tells the tale, but the sealings all seemed to private, known only to but a few.

Josephine was born on February 8th of 1844 in Nauvoo. That would have put her time of conception in the May - June of 1843. Winsor Lyon was excommunicated in November of 1842. I do not know whether he had been disfellowshipped prior to that. He owned something like a drug store in Nauvoo. The early log version was used as a residence. I do not know if the later brick store also served as a residence. Whatever the case, there does not appear to be a time when Sylvia and Winsor were separated. Todd Compton reports "In Sacred Loneliness" that Sylvia's home was a hub of social activity in Nauvoo.

Whatever the case, 1843 was a trying year for Joseph. His life was under the proverbial microscope, since the explosive letters by John Bennett accusing Joseph of the sqme3 things that he, John Bennett had been excommunicated for. On most accounts, Joseph is believed to be an intelligent man. People for some reason, are willing to believe that he and Sylvia both were pretty stupid people. And that all of Nauvoo was blind. Or that they saw and said nothing.

Here is a timeline of Joseph's activities in 1843. https://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-visionarticles/joseph1843chronology.htm

And then, there was the public sealing in 1844 after Joseph's death. Why if the the one in 1842 (or 1843 maybe) was not a closely held affair known only to a few?

But it is possible that Joseph and Sylvia did have conjugal relations. It just does not appear to me to be logical, much less a slam dunk likelihood.

Glenn

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Julie,

  I did not say that I base my thoughts on the understanding that polygamy in Nauvoo was closely held knowledge. Joseph did not declare it from the pulpit, but on the contrary denied it, choosing his words very carefully. Instead, Joseph first broached the subject to people close to him. There is not one particular document that tells the tale, but the sealings all seemed to private, known only to but a few.

Josephine was born on February 8th of 1844 in Nauvoo. That would have put her time of conception in the May - June of 1843. Winsor Lyon was excommunicated in November of 1842. I do not know whether he had been disfellowshipped prior to that. He owned something like a drug store in Nauvoo. The early log version was used as a residence. I do not know if the later brick store also served as a residence. Whatever the case, there does not appear to be a time when Sylvia and Winsor were separated. Todd Compton reports "In Sacred Loneliness" that Sylvia's home was a hub of social activity in Nauvoo.

Whatever the case, 1843 was a trying year for Joseph. His life was under the proverbial microscope, since the explosive letters by John Bennett accusing Joseph of the sqme3 things that he, John Bennett had been excommunicated for. On most accounts, Joseph is believed to be an intelligent man. People for some reason, are willing to believe that he and Sylvia both were pretty stupid people. And that all of Nauvoo was blind. Or that they saw and said nothing.

Here is a timeline of Joseph's activities in 1843. https://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-visionarticles/joseph1843chronology.htm

And then, there was the public sealing in 1844 after Joseph's death. Why if the the one in 1842 (or 1843 maybe) was not a closely held affair known only to a few?

But it is possible that Joseph and Sylvia did have conjugal relations. It just does not appear to me to be logical, much less a slam dunk likelihood.

Glenn

Thank you Glenn, for laying out your feelings on this. I agree that at the time the sealing took place (1843), there was a need for secrecy. I was hoping you had some record or documentation that the sealings had remained a secret from everyone for the next almost 40 years.  I understand that you don't have that now. 

By 1883, polygamy was no longer done in secrecy and was very much out in the open.

But the truth is, we simply don't know if members knew who Joseph's plural wives were or if it was still kept as a guarded secret. Certainly someone knew that Sylvia had been sealed to Joseph while he was living.  I respect your right to believe this was the secret Sylvia revealed to Josephine on her death bed (that she said no one else knew about), but I see the evidence and reason and logic behind her revealing that she believed Josephine was Joseph's biological daughter.   I do not have any issue with Joseph and Sylvia having marital relations and believe that she did believe Joseph was the Father.

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

6 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

I agree with this but I don't think you answered the right question which is this:

How are children treated who are born before a sealing takes place?

The answer is that a child is not sealed retroactively but would need to have a separate sealing performed, sealing them to the parents.  Otherwise they would be sealed to no one.

We do that now.  Did they always do it or did they see sealings as retroactive?  Enough understandings have changed, I don't think we should take that answer as a given.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Calm

[Glenn101]

43 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Thank you Glenn, for laying out your feelings on this. I agree that at the time the sealing took place (1843), there was a need for secrecy. I was hoping you had some record or documentation that the sealings had remained a secret from everyone for the next almost 40 years.  I understand that you don't have that now. 

By 1883, polygamy was no longer done in secrecy and was very much out in the open.

But the truth is, we simply don't know if members knew who Joseph's plural wives were or if it was still kept as a guarded secret. Certainly someone knew that Sylvia had been sealed to Joseph while he was living.  I respect your right to believe this was the secret Sylvia revealed to Josephine on her death bed (that she said no one else knew about), but I see the evidence and reason and logic behind her revealing that she believed Josephine was Joseph's biological daughter.   I do not have any issue with Joseph and Sylvia having marital relations and believe that she did believe Joseph was the Father.

 

Julie, I do believe that maybe you are misreading Sylvia's words. She did not say that no one else knew about it. She only said that she had not told anyone prior to that revelation when she felt she was near death. It would have to have been performed by a priesthood holder and there would have been witnesses, so obviously there were two to three others at least who knew about it. Granted that polygamy was not a taboo subject by ant means in Utah, especially after 1852, but I have read nothing yet that conveys the impression that Sylvia had imparted to anyone that she had been sealed to Joseph Smith prior to the 1844 proxy sealing. It has been the historians that have gleaned that fact from the scant information handed down from posterity.

The only evidence that we have for a conclusion that Sylvia believed Joseph Smith was the biological father of Josephine was her words, as repeated by Josephine in her 1915 affidavit. It is an ambiguous statement at best, in light of the LDS doctrine on sealing ordinances and the fact that Sylvia was sealed to Joseph on two separate occasions.

I cannot discount the possibility that there were conjugal relations based upon the current state of the evidence.

However, you have not addressed the issues that I brought up concerning the public scrutiny surrounding Joseph during the period of time in question, i.e. the Josephine's conception, probably late May or Early June of 1843. Nor has anyone produced any evidence that Sylvia and Winsor were separated during that period. It is evident that they were living together in October of 1843 because Emily Partridge came to live with them for a period of time and slept in the same room with Sylvia and Winsor  so that she could care for the young child that often was fretful at night. There is only one way that I know a woman could be sure as to the paternity of a child during that period of time. That is exclusive conjugal relations.

By the way, the Phebe Clark section in the Carr Family History is problematic in at least one aspect. Phebe quotes from the affidavit made by Josephine in 1915, but Phebe died in 1912. How magical is that?

We cannot go much further on this. We do have differing opinions, which is not unusual when confronted with ambiguous evidence. I appreciate your reasonable tone in the debate.

But I just do not understand how any reasonable person could come away with a different perspective after my brilliantly inconclusive posts!!! 

Glenn

[Ouagadougou]

On 08.02.2017 at 8:59 AM, 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?

“The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.” 1

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/04/strengthening-the-family-multiply-and-replenish-the-earth?lang=eng

For some reason, many believe that this didn't apply to a prophet of God who received direct revelation from God, due to the fact that they don't want to admit that he most likely had physical relations with some of his 30 plus wives.  What's ironic is the amount of pressure church leaders today put on married couples to have children, while at the same time, denying that Joseph Smith had any physical relations with his other 30 plus wives.  

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

There is only one way that I know a woman could be sure as to the paternity of a child during that period of time. That is exclusive conjugal relations.

However some women may be confused over timing of pregnancy for various reasons, including misinterpreting bleeding during the first month as a period as it often occurs at the same time as the expected period.

http://americanpregnancy.org/getting-pregnant/pregnancy-faq/

And there have always been plenty of misconceptions out there surrounding conception, it is impossible I suspect to find out for sure it Sylvia was free of them or if she could have convinced herself due to wishful thinking that Joseph was definitely the biological father of Josephine even if she was sexually active with both her civil and sealed husband during a short time period around the conception.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Calm

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

For some reason, many believe that this didn't apply to a prophet of God who received direct revelation from God, due to the fact that they don't want to admit that he most likely had physical relations with some of his 30 plus wives.

It only applies to temporal wives.  Sealing in a temple as a spiritual f(eternity) couple does not require consummation with sex after they leave the temple, as is the case with a sealing of a temporal (mortal and spiritual) marriage.

I find it ironic that critics of the church are so eager and willing to give their perverse interpretation of latter day scriptures, when they themselves disclaim the validity of those scriptures and prophets.  Please tell us how much you have studied these scriptures == how many times, for example, have you read the Book of Mormon.  Just curious since you want to teach someone who has given his entire life to reading and studying them == over 40 times reading the Book of Mormon.

Tell us your expertise and let's see if we should pay you any attention at all.

Edited February 10, 2017 by cdowis

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

What's ironic is the amount of pressure church leaders today put on married couples to have children, while at the same time, denying that Joseph Smith had any physical relations with his other 30 plus wives.  

 

Where do church leaders deny Joseph had "any physical relations" with any of his plural wives?