Eternity Only Sealings?

[juliann]

21 hours ago, rongo said:

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.

That picture is so cool! I can't even imagine walking down the street in that contraption let alone across the country. I'm very proud of my ggrandfather. He kept the family together after the manifesto and supported his wives until his death. Then it got unpleasant.

But there were duds. Patty Sessions husband took advantage of her financially while he pretty much abandoned her for more interesting new wives.  And then there were the guys who played favorites and/or brought home new wives without notice. The one that gave the new one his first wife's bedroom was special. 

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

That picture is so cool! I can't even imagine walking down the street in that contraption let alone across the country. I'm very proud of my ggrandfather. He kept the family together after the manifesto and supported his wives until his death. Then it got unpleasant.

But there were duds. Patty Sessions husband took advantage of her financially while he pretty much abandoned her for more interesting new wives.  And then there were the guys who played favorites and/or brought home new wives without notice. The one that gave the new one his first wife's bedroom was special. 

One of my ancestors, John W. Hess, was wealthy and had many wives. I come from wife #3, and there are many people in my stake who are his descendants. A former young women's president of mine and I kids each other because she comes from the last wife, the 16 year old he showed off all the time when the old women were left home. He wasn't a dud, per se, but obviously enjoyed showing off his "trophy wife" at the expense of the old ones he never took in public once he married the young one. 

I look at the emotional and psychological problems we have today, and think we are even more poorly-suited to live polygamy now than they were then. And everyone has bad anecdotes that are interesting to talk about from back then. 

Same with the United Order. We are even further away from being able to live that today than they were back then, I think. 

ETA: My g-g-g-grandfather cut his leg harvesting hops. When they had to cut his leg off to save his life, they got him drunk on whiskey, held him down with six men, and hurriedly sawed the leg off (with the arteries in the leg, you have to hurry and get it off and stop the bleeding fast). Then, they pulled the skin over the stump, and seared the wound closed with hot irons. In the months while convalescing, he carved his leg out of a block of wood. It's a gorgeous piece of work, once finished. The stump fit into the bowl, and you shuffled around with it. 

Edited February 10, 2017 by rongo

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

"During the era in which plural marriage was practiced, Latter-day Saints distinguished between sealings for time and eternity and sealings for eternity only. Sealings for time and eternity included commitments and relationships during this life, generally including the possibility of sexual relations. Eternity-only sealings indicated relationships in the next life alone.

Evidence indicates that Joseph Smith participated in both types of sealings. The exact number of women to whom he was sealed in his lifetime is unknown because the evidence is fragmentary.²⁴ Some of the women who were sealed to Joseph Smith later testified that their marriages were for time and eternity, while others indicated that their relationships were for eternity alone.^25"

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng&old=true

This isn't an official church website but it says the following:

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

"All public interactions were conducted without divulging the clandestine sealed marriages. While it is not possible to establish an accurate picture of his relations with his polygamous wives, several observations suggest that sexual relations occurred infrequently, at best."

Clearly apologists are trying to paint a picture that Joseph a Smith didn't engage in sexual relations with his other 30 plus wives.  

On the contrary, in the first quote, it is stating some were eternity only, thus others had to be for time and eternity and thus involving sexual relations.  In the second, it allows for sexual relations though infrequently.

How are either a picture of no sexual relations?  Simply because they see some of the relationships not involving sexual relations and possibly all the sexual relationships being occasional/infrequent, does in no way equate to sex was nonexistent.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

He is saying that polyandrous marriages are adultery if they aren't eternity only sealings with no intimate relations.

Yes, I understand that, but thanks.

That's a big "if" and as you've pointed out, we have no record of whether or not any of Joseph's polyandrous sealings were eternity only.

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by JulieM

[juliann]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

 

Why would Joseph be committing  adultery if he had relations with Sylvia but not be committing adultery if he had relations with a single woman?  If you believe he was married (sealed) to both, why would only the one be considered adultery?

You are trying to redefine the word adultery.  You can't possibly believe a married man isn't committing adultery if the other woman is single, do you?

 

 

I guess it is progress that those who are in your face saying this won't admit it. That is all this is about, the convoluted excuses aren't even necessary. Ironically, it places the prophethood of Joseph squarely on the shoulders of women. As long as the women were behaving, he remains a pure prophet. But if a woman also had multiple spouses, he is not a pure prophet. Somehow that makes sense to some. 

We still have the remnants of these male centric double standards as we tell girls they are responsible for keeping the boys chaste and mission ready by dressing "modestly." 

BTW, by the time Sylvia talked to Josephine, it was a badge of honor to have been married to JS. His wives were well known and were a elite group with high status. They weren't hiding it. 

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Sealing ceremony does not erase the exclusive right of the husband to intimate relations with his wife. The sealing does not give the eternal husband the right to sex with a married woman.  This is a violation of the law of morality.

As a prophet of God, with God Himself giving JS the continued revelation and administration of the church, it is clear to me that he did not commit adultery.

I agree.  Joseph did NOT commit adultery.
However I do NOT agree that in order to reach this conclusion we are required to assume Joseph only had "eternity only" sealings and no relations with his polyandrous wives.  That is the step you are taking that is not in evidence.
Joseph could well have been sealed to these civilly married women for both time AND eternity.  There is no evidence to the contrary.

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yes, I understand that, but thanks.

And, that's a big "if" and as you've pointed out, we have no record of whether or not any of Joseph's polyandrous dealings were eternity only.

 

For the life of me, I cannot understand why those who promote this silliness can't see that if even one instance occurred they have set up a standard that will take down Joseph. What do they do then?  Uphold their rule that he is an adulterer? How can they not?

Meanwhile, women's journals, records, etc. are being digitized at an astronomical rate.....  Most people would at least apply minimal caution in creating iron clad categories of what JS can't do and still remain of good character until all the data is in.

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, juliann said:

But there were duds. Patty Sessions husband took advantage of her financially while he pretty much abandoned her for more interesting new wives.  And then there were the guys who played favorites and/or brought home new wives without notice. The one that gave the new one his first wife's bedroom was special.

Showing once again that mortal men are experts at making a mess of heaven's laws.
Seriously, it makes one wonder why God ever reveals ANY laws, ordinances, or principles of heaven to us weak mortals.
It also makes me wonder how many things we currently practice and believe are the result of men making a mess of what God has so clearly and kindly revealed to us.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

One of my ancestors, John W. Hess, was wealthy and had many wives. I come from wife #3, and there are many people in my stake who are his descendants. A former young women's president of mine and I kids each other because she comes from the last wife, the 16 year old he showed off all the time when the old women were left home. He wasn't a dud, per se, but obviously enjoyed showing off his "trophy wife" at the expense of the old ones he never took in public once he married the young one. 

I look at the emotional and psychological problems we have today, and think we are even more poorly-suited to live polygamy now than they were then. And everyone has bad anecdotes that are interesting to talk about from back then. 

Same with the United Order. We are even further away from being able to live that today than they were back then, I think. 

I am not well versed in the era, but there does seem to have been stronger cultural ideal that a good man provides good lives to the best of his ability for his family.  The belief that women were not meant to be independent as well as the status of having children all strengthened the ties of marriage and family for a man, though not always for the right reasons or in good ways (having children to build personal value...'the more children I have, the more important, better, powerful, rich...whatever I am' is a very selfish reason and treats family as objects of possession, not individuals of infinite worth).

And there is, imo, a definite decrease in community feeling, a lack of any sense of dependence on one's neighbours for survival and often little to no need to even feel connected to those physically around us.  They do not become in any sense part of an extended family structure.  Relationships can be very fleeting and shallow if there at all.  We avoid putting effort into creating longterm bonds when we know that few these days anticipate staying in the neighbourhood for the rest of their lives, their home is just to 'do' for this stage of their lives.  If we hold back emotionally to protect ourselves from pain of separation, 'poor return' on investing in friendships, etc., we are highly unlikely to feel it is safe to join a community that can only survive on longterm total commitment of the vast majority of its members.

[Rain]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

 

gosh...I would hope not..that was an old seminary film..where a young couple dies but go separately because they weren't sealed.  Car accident right after the ceremony.  Did you see that? Don't mind me.  This thread has been so confusing to me.

Didn't see it.  It just surprised me that someone would feel a sealing for the living didn't take unless it was consummated so my brain was coming up with a number of reasons why consummation might not take place. That was just the easiest one to give as an example.  Still wondering if others feel this way or if it was said somewhere.  

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Though I am confused...I get the impression that JS and men in general get a pass on adultery.

I really don't think the people on this board are giving anyone a pass on adultery.  No matter what they feel happened, I just don't see them feeling this way. That is not to say that no one would give men a pass, just that I find it unlikely that most, if not all, here would do it. 

[cdowis]

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Joseph could well have been sealed to these civilly married women for both time AND eternity.  There is no evidence to the contrary.

Argument from Ignorance (A Logical Fallacy)

The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.  Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Explanation: There is an infinity of things we cannot prove -- the moon being filled with spare ribs is one of them.  Now you might expect that any “reasonable” person would know that the moon can’t be filled with spare ribs, but you would be expecting too much.  People make wild claims, and get away with them, simply on the fact that the converse cannot otherwise be proven.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument_from_Ignorance

You are welcome.

Edited February 10, 2017 by cdowis

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Argument from Ignorance (A Logical Fallacy)

The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.  Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Explanation: There is an infinity of things we cannot prove -- the moon being filled with spare ribs is one of them.  Now you might expect that any “reasonable” person would know that the moon can’t be filled with spare ribs, but you would be expecting too much.  People make wild claims, and get away with them, simply on the fact that the converse cannot otherwise be proven.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument_from_Ignorance

You are welcome.

If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.

You're welcome too!

[Ouagadougou]

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

On the contrary, in the first quote, it is stating some were eternity only, thus others had to be for time and eternity and thus involving sexual relations.  In the second, it allows for sexual relations though infrequently.

How are either a picture of no sexual relations?  Simply because they see some of the relationships not involving sexual relations and possibly all the sexual relationships being occasional/infrequent, does in no way equate to sex was nonexistent.

So you agree that Joseph Smith most likely had sexual relations with several of his 30 plus wives?  

[Guest]

On February 8, 2017 at 11:59 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?

We have the "lack of evidence", Joseph had 11 children (not all lived) with Emma, but out of all the women he was sealed too, not a single one. Every charge made against him by such marriages had been debunked based on DNA evidence 

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

So you agree that Joseph Smith most likely had sexual relations with several of his 30 plus wives?  

Oh for heaven's sake. NOBODY disagrees with that (not counting fringe outliers.)  That was a belief of the RLDS church at one time.  Catch up.

 

24 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Argument from Ignorance (A Logical Fallacy)

The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.  Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

 

Eh, you do realize that is what insisting there was no sex in marriages is based upon.....

 

26 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

I really don't think the people on this board are giving anyone a pass on adultery.  No matter what they feel happened, I just don't see them feeling this way. That is not to say that no one would give men a pass, just that I find it unlikely that most, if not all, here would do it. 

Yes, they are. Adultery is not a gender based word. CDowis is creating gender based definitions that do not exist, it is adultery for one gender but not the other. So he has defined adultery as a man having sex with married women while allowing women to have sex with a married man, thus giving men a pass for the same thing he condemns for the women. He has created insider theological arguments for this that have no relation to the definition of adultery that the rest of the world accepts. Which is why I suggested he come up with a new word if he wants double standards.

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

We have the "lack of evidence", Joseph had 11 children (not all lived) with Emma, but out of all the women he was sealed too, not a single one. Every charge made against him by such marriages had been debunked based on DNA evidence 

No it hasn't. They can't even do DNA in all cases. And there were almost no children in the Nauvoo marriages where sex is not disputed so trying to make JS a special case isn't sustainable.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

So you agree that Joseph Smith most likely had sexual relations with several of his 30 plus wives?  

Yeah, always have thought it likely.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

No it hasn't. They can't even do DNA in all cases. And there were almost no children in the Nauvoo marriages where sex is not disputed so trying to make JS a special case isn't sustainable.

I know that Joseph took part in polygamy and had other wives in the real sense. But many have tried to prove it through DNA testing and found none who claimed to be descendants, but no tests have been conclusive. I am not trying to make Joeshp Smith a special case. I was simple responding to the OP...you read me wrong, a common occurrence. 

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

We have the "lack of evidence", Joseph had 11 children (not all lived) with Emma, but out of all the women he was sealed too, not a single one. Every charge made against him by such marriages had been debunked based on DNA evidence

This old argument again?
This does NOT provide any real evidence against Joseph having relations with his plural wives.
 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yeah, always have thought it likely.

Of course he did, but the questions remains who. I once asked on an anti-website, the following.

"Do you believe that he had sex with all of those sealed to him (as he was also bent sealed to women in their 50's or 60's"? 

The reply was, "no only the younger ones". This answer says more about the person(s) answering, than it does about Joseph, I think. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This old argument again?
This does NOT provide any real evidence against Joseph having relations with his plural wives.
 

No it does not, just pointing out, that in his short marriage to Emma, she was with child much of their marriage, and we know of no others. I was not suggesting that he was not a polygamist in a very real sense, but certainly not all of his wives. Whatever level he was a polygamist, Brigham Young took it pro, I believe 19 wives and 60+ children. 

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

Sealing ceremony does not erase the exclusive right of the husband to intimate relations with his wife. The sealing does not give the eternal husband the right to sex with a married woman.  This is a violation of the law of morality.

But it gives the right to a MARRIED man to have sex with multiple women (plural wives), just as long as the women are single?

How about Emma's exclusive rights to intimate relations with her husband?  They aren't as important?

Edited February 10, 2017 by JulieM

[juliann]

35 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I know that Joseph took part in polygamy and had other wives in the real sense. But many have tried to prove it through DNA testing and found none who claimed to be descendants, but no tests have been conclusive. I am not trying to make Joeshp Smith a special case. I was simple responding to the OP...you read me wrong, a common occurrence. 

It is Ugo Perego who does the DNA testing, not "many." He has a GoFundMe to finance it, I contributed. This is a lengthy and expensive process.  There has to be a line of female descendants for this testing so they can't test everyone, thus, saying they found none is misleading until all have been tested. Those that have, have been negative, as you say

 

33 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Of course he did, but the questions remains who. I once asked on an anti-website, the following.

"Do you believe that he had sex with all of those sealed to him (as he was also bent sealed to women in their 50's or 60's"? 

The reply was, "no only the younger ones". This answer says more about the person(s) answering, than it does about Joseph, I think. 

Thank you for that. I find it quite tasteless that people throw in "older" women to prove no sex when they do not consider geriatric men acquiring teen wives an obstacle.

 

30 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

No it does not, just pointing out, that in his short marriage to Emma, she was with child much of their marriage, and we know of no others. I was not suggesting that he was not a polygamist in a very real sense, but certainly not all of his wives. Whatever level he was a polygamist, Brigham Young took it pro, I believe 19 wives and 60+ children. 

. She seemed to have 2 to 3 years between pregnancies so she wasn't particularly prolific, given the times. BY had about 50 wives and played favorites to a shocking degree as he aged. 

[JLHPROF]

49 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

No it does not, just pointing out, that in his short marriage to Emma, she was with child much of their marriage, and we know of no others. I was not suggesting that he was not a polygamist in a very real sense, but certainly not all of his wives. Whatever level he was a polygamist, Brigham Young took it pro, I believe 19 wives and 60+ children.

But if we are going to compare Brigham and Joseph, we need to look at the circumstances as well.
During Joseph's life, the Nauvoo period Brigham entered plural marriage too.

Between 1842 & 1844 (when Joseph married most of his wives) Brigham married 4 additional wives to his legal wife Mary Ann meaning he had 5 wives at the time of the martyrdom and upwards of 30 by the time he left Nauvoo.

And like Joseph, he had many children with his legal wife, but NO children with plural wives during the time in Nauvoo.
This is where the "Joseph had no relations with his wives" argument doesn't hold water.  Clearly some other factor prevented these men who lived polygamy in the Nauvoo period from having plural children.  In fact, of the 30+ men that entered polygamy in the days of Joseph Smith only 2 children were recorded as being born to plural wives.

This leads me to believe not as others have claimed that these were supposed to be eternity only sealings (if that were the case there would have been reprimand for the two men who did father children).  But that some other reason was the cause for the lack of children born in polygamy in Nauvoo.
We are talking about 30 men during the 2-3 year period entering polygamy.  But only 2 or 3 children born to polygamy.  That speaks to circumstance, not celibacy.
 

Edited February 10, 2017 by JLHPROF

[BillyandJane]

Does it really matter to anyone here whether or not he actually had sex with Helen? Shouldn't the fact that he emotionally manipulated a 14 year old into marriage by hanging the very salvation of her parents over her head a horrible enough action?