Callings given to imperfect human beings

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, 100%.

Every bit as righteous as telling us to pay our tithing or be burned.  Or accept someone we've never met as our supreme Lord or be damned.  Or Christ telling the disciples if they weren't washed by him they'd have no place in his kingdom.  

That might be true if Joseph was just promising Helen her own salvation if she agreed to marry him, but the salvation of “all” of her “kindred” was promised based on what she did.  I don’t see how that was a valid promise. Does that include promised salvation for her kindred alive today?

Here’s what Joseph offered or promised:

“If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.”

Isn’t that the same as promising that their calling and election would be made sure (“all her kindred”)?

Edited September 4, 2019 by JulieM

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, JulieM said:

That might be true if Joseph was just promising Helen her own salvation if she agreed to marry him, but the salvation of “all” of her “kindred” was promised based on what she did.  I don’t see how that was a valid promise. Does that include promised salvation for her kindred alive today?

Here’s what Joseph offered or promised:

“If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.”

Isn’t that the same as promising that their calling and election would be made sure (“all her kindred”)?

That's how I see it.  And it's ridiculous to compare offering this (her family's salvation) to a 14 year old girl if she married a 37 year old man (who already had a legal wife and dozens of plural wives) to paying tithing or you're going to be burned.  IMO, there is absolutely no way to view this incident without acknowledging that this 14 year old was pressured to agree to this marriage in order to "ensure" her "eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred".  One has to wonder how that is even possible to promise anyone?  Do we even know if ALL of her kindred remained in the church or are they all active in the church today (those who are alive)?

Helen is the true hero in all of this, not the men involved (her Father and Joseph), IMO.  Her writings of that period are heart breaking, but she remained faithful and her life story is one of an amazingly strong and valiant woman.  Her writings later in life are beautiful and inspiring.

Edited September 4, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I really have no idea what you are referring to as "coercive".  The command to live polygamy was no more coercive that the requirement to be baptized, pay tithing, say your prayers, wear the garments. 

The command might not have been, but the methods used by men (humans who are fallible) were not always moral or and were manipulative at times.  I do agree that the word "coercion" is too strong (unless one is referring to what Joseph related took place with the angel threatening him with destruction if he did not live polygamy).  But he then used that to get women to agree to marry him (that he'd be destroyed if they didn't agree to be his wife).  Some went along with that and married him, but not all that he attempted this with married him.

My big issue with how Joseph lived polygamy were the lies and deceit involved.  And the betrayal (over and over again) of Emma.  

 

Edited September 4, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

9 hours ago, JulieM said:

That might be true if Joseph was just promising Helen her own salvation if she agreed to marry him, but the salvation of “all” of her “kindred” was promised based on what she did.  I don’t see how that was a valid promise. Does that include promised salvation for her kindred alive today?

Here’s what Joseph offered or promised:

“If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.”

Isn’t that the same as promising that their calling and election would be made sure (“all her kindred”)?

Short Answer: No.  Not really.

Long Answer: I think we need to contextualize this issue.  A lot.

From the Hales' website on this topic (emphases added):

Quote

A third area of controversy involving Helen Mar Kimball arises from a statement she wrote in an 1881 autobiographical letter written to her children:

Quote

I heard him [Joseph Smith] teach and explain the principle of celestial marriage. After which he said to me, “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father’s household and all of your kindred.” This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.

This quotation is sometimes cited by critics as solid evidence that the Prophet promised exaltation to at least one of his plural wives and her family if they would agree to the marriage. Typically omitted from such accounts is the fact that one year later Helen clarified that she may not have understood everything correctly: “I confess that I was too young or too ‘foolish’ to comprehend and appreciate all” that Joseph Smith then taught.

Contemporaneous evidence from more mature family members who were better positioned to “comprehend and appreciate” the Prophet’s promises to Helen demonstrates that her statement reflects her misunderstanding of the blessings predicated on this sealing.

Just weeks after Helen Mar’s plural wedding to Joseph Smith, Helen’s father, Heber C. Kimball, in a July 10,1843, letter to her from Pittsburg, expressed concern for her soul, reminding her that salvation in the next life would depend on how she lived this life: “My child, remember the care that your dear father and mother have for your welfare in this life, that all may be done well, and that in view of eternal worlds, for that will depend upon what we do here, and how we do it.”

Helen’s mother, Vilate, had written to Heber a month earlier on June 8, 1843: “I am yours in time and through all eternity. This blessing has been sealed upon us by the holy spirit of promise and cannot be broken only through transgression or committing a grosser crime than your heart or mine is capable of.”   If fourteen-year-old Helen Mar understood her eternal sealing to the Prophet ensured her exaltation, she was apparently alone in this understanding.

And this 2011 article by J. Spencer Fluhman (emphases added):

Quote

Helen’s emphasis on “eternity alone” and her father’s underscoring of the “view of eternal worlds” points to the otherworldly significance each attached to her marriage. Viewed from any angle, Nauvoo plural marriages contradict modern expectations. Helen’s marriage was not rooted in romantic feelings, mutual attraction, or an emotional bond. To the contrary, she sensed that her marriage provided spiritual benefits for her and her family. Looking back across the years, she wrote that those benefits had constituted a large share of her motivation to enter into the marriage: “Joseph . . . came next morning & with my parents I heard him teach & explain the principle of Celestial marrage—after which he said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation & that of your father’s household & all of your kindred. This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.” Neither a starry-eyed nor love-struck proposal, Joseph Smith’s to Helen resembles others recorded by the Prophet’s wives; each reported that he couched his proposal in the language of revelation, obedience to God’s law, and the promise of eternal rewards.  Joseph Smith’s proposals, in other words, mirrored the 1843 revelation on celestial marriage (see D&C 132), which highlighted law (see vv. 3–7, 11–12, 15–19, 21, 24–28, 31–34, 37, 48, 54, 58–66), obedience (see vv. 3–5, 53–55, 64–66), and afterlife blessings (see vv. 19–24, 55, 63). 

According to Helen, her father was similarly motivated. The argument that Joseph Smith initiated plural marriages for his own lustful purposes fails to account for the fact that, in Helen’s case at least, it was her own father who proposed the marriage. Her father taught her “the principle of Celestial marrage,” Helen wrote in 1881, “& having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet’s own mouth.”  Kimball’s desire to be “connected” to Joseph Smith, curious as it may be to modern Saints, somewhat reorients the marriage away from questions of Joseph Smith’s motivations. What did Elder Kimball hope to achieve by “offering” Helen? Why would a marriage to Joseph Smith have been preferred over one to a man closer to Helen’s own age? Why the urgency about marrying her off so young?
...
At the heart of his Nauvoo teachings was the Prophet’s emphasis on creating binding links that would join the Saints as God’s extended family. Writing to the Church in 1842, Joseph Smith stressed that baptisms for the dead would function as a “welding” link (see D&C 128:18). Certainly, celestial marriage would function as another.  Not yet a part of Latter-day Saint understanding, though, was a sense that families could be sealed together through ordinances across generations of the dead. No Saint of the 1840s was sealed to his or her own ancestors through vicarious ordinances; later Church Presidents would add intergenerational sealing to temple practice. Their absence in Nauvoo helps explain Heber Kimball’s actions with regard to his daughter. 

Convinced that sealing was God’s plan for his people, the Nauvoo Saints in effect created extended eternal families by sealing living Saints of no blood relation—through plural marriages and adult “adoptions”—rather than through sealing to one’s own progenitors via proxy work. (Through what the Saints called the “law of adoption,” adult men without faithful Latter-day Saint parents were sealed to other adult men as their adopted sons.)  ... Since endowments and sealings for the dead were not yet part of Latter-day Saint temple practice, the Nauvoo Saints’ sealing work bore a marked sense of urgency. In other words, whatever was to be done in terms of ordinance work beyond baptism was to be done here and now and only for the living. Speaking in 1859, Elder Orson Pratt put it bluntly: “All these things have to be attended to here.”  Saints like Heber Kimball thus yearned to be linked or welded into an extended celestial family. Viewed in this light, Elder Kimball and the Prophet Joseph Smith seem to have been collecting kin as much as wives. In the words of one historian, “Joseph did not marry women to form a warm, human companionship, but to create a network of related wives, children, and kinsmen that would endure into the eternities. . . . Like Abraham of old, Joseph yearned for familial plentitude.” 

Complicated though they may be, these doctrinal points help make Heber Kimball’s “offering” of Helen more comprehensible. In the Kimball family narratives—from Heber, Helen Mar, and finally her son, Elder Orson F. Whitney—Helen Mar’s marriage bound the Smith and Kimball families together. In the logic of those narratives, an earthly relationship between Joseph Smith and Helen Mar Kimball was almost beside the point. Given the evident lack of a meaningful earthly relationship in their case, one historian with an eye on these wider connections being made between Joseph Smith and close associate’s families opted for the word “dynastic” to describe their marriage.

And here (same link):

Quote

Though Helen returned to sacrificial metaphors throughout her writings, her voice in the 1880s rang with conviction regarding her decision. With other Saints then weathering a storm of federal prosecution and national opprobrium, she at times wrote about her life as though all her striving had brought her future blessings only: “The Latter-day Saints do not desire tribulation, but they look for little else in this life. . . . No earthly inducement could be held forth to the women who entered this order. It was to be a life-sacrifice for the sake of an everlasting glory and exaltation.” In other moments, though, she demanded that readers understand that it was all worth it. Responding to criticisms that Latter-day Saint women were coerced or cajoled into polygamy or that their lives were miserable, Helen maintained that Joseph Smith’s revelation (D&C 132) contained “the words of the Lord.” For her, that spiritual conviction was the key. “The Latter-day Saints would not enter into this holy order of matrimony unless they had received some stronger and more convincing proofs of its correctness than the testimony of a man, for in obeying this law it has cost them a sacrifice nearly equal to that of Abraham.” Latter-day Saint women, she wrote, bravely stood with Sarah, Rachel, Leah, and other godly women, “lawful and honored wives” in sacred history who had heard God’s word and obeyed.

For Helen, not all blessings of plural marriage blessings were held in waiting. “I have been a spectator and a participator in this order of matrimony for over thirty years, and being a first wife, I have had every opportunity for judging in regard to its merits,” she wrote in 1882. “There are real and tangible blessings enjoyed under this system.” Without downplaying the difficulties plural marriage entailed, Helen maintained that those who entered into the “principle” with “pure motives” and “continued to practice it in righteousness” were fashioned into better Christians: “Their souls will be expanded, and in the place of selfishness, patience and charity will find place in their hearts.” Thus oriented toward God and “the interests of others,” she concluded, righteous polygamous men and women “are rising above our earthly idols, and find that we have easier access to the throne of grace.” 

And this FAIR article (emphases added):

Quote

Researcher Brian Hales has identified a further line of evidence which suggests that Helen's marriage was not consummated. In 1892, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS, now Community of Christ) brought suit against the Hendrickite, or "Temple Lot" break-off group. They claimed that the Independence, Missouri temple site was rightfully RLDS property, since they were the direct heirs of Joseph Smith's original religious group.

Although not embracing plural marriage themselves, the Temple Lot group was anxious to demonstrate that Joseph Smith had taught plural marriage--for, if this was so, then the RLDS (who denied that Joseph had practiced it, and certainly did not embrace the doctrine) would have difficulty proving that they were the direct successors to the church founded by Joseph.

Hales reports:

Quote

Nine of Joseph Smith's plural wives were still living when depositions started at Salt Lake City on March 14, 1892. Three were polyandrous wives (Zina Huntington Jacobs Young, Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, and Patty Bartlett Sessions) and six were nonpolyandrous (Helen Mar Kimball, Martha McBride, Almera Johnson, Emily Partridge, Malissa Lott, and Lucy Walker.) Factors evidently affecting the choice of witnesses involved the health and travel distances for the women, and importantly, whether their polygamous marriages to the Prophet included conjugality. Non-sexual sealings would have been treated as spiritual marriages of little importance and would have played right into the hands of RLDS attorneys....

Among nonpolyandrous wives who were not summoned was Martha McBride who lived in Hooper, Utah (thirty-seven miles to the north). McBride's relationship with Joseph Smith is poorly documented, with no evidence of sexual relations....Also passed by was Salt Lake resident Helen Mar Kimball who had written two books defending the practice of plural marriage. Her sealing to the Prophet ocurred when she was only fourteen and the presence or absence of sexual relations in her plural marriage is debated by historians.

Throughout the lengthy question-and-answer sessions with Malissa Lott, Emily Partridge, and Lucy Walker, the details of their polygamous marriages with Joseph Smith were paramount; the physical aspect of sexuality was a core issue. If [Helen or others] could not testify to such relations, their testimonies as the Prophet's polygamous wives could hurt the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) cause.

 

Hales really does some good work here.  The Temple Lot folks were keen on proving (in court) that Joseph Smith taught plural marriage, as this weakened the RLDS arguments against the Temple Lot folks' legal position.  And not just plural marriage, but plural marriage that included "conjugality," as a relationship that was purely ceremonial, and did not involve cohabitation, sex, etc., would be seen more as a religious observance, and not as a "marriage" as is generally understood.

At first blush, you would think that the Temple Lot attorneys would be eager to depose Helen, since by that time (1890s) she had become an ardent defender of polygamy.  She also lived in Salt Lake, and hence was readily available to testify.  And yet the Temple Lot attorneys did not depose her, and instead deposed other still-surviving wives (Malissa Lott, Emily Partridge, and Lucy Walker).  And the depositions focused heavily on "the physical aspect of sexuality" in their relationships to Joseph Smith.

The Temple Lot attorneys not taking Helen's testimony is indicative of something important.  I suspect they likely spoke with her and determined that her relationship with Joseph Smith lacked "the physical aspect of sexuality," and so chose not to depose her, as doing so would not have helped their case (and might have even hurt it).  In this instance, the absence of evidence (the Temple Lot attorneys not deposing Helen) is evidence of absence (of consummation).

Moving on, FAIR also has this interesting bit:

Quote

Critics also provide a supposed "confession" from Helen, in which she reportedly said:

Quote

I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than ceremony. I was young, and they deceived me, by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it.

Compton properly characterizes this source, noting that it is an anti-Mormon work, and calls its extreme language "suspect."

George D. Smith tells his readers only that this is Helen "confiding," while doing nothing to reveal the statement's provenance from a hostile source. Newell and Avery tell us nothing of the nature of this source and call it only a “statement” in the Stanley Ivins Collection; Van Wagoner mirrors G. D. Smith by disingenuously writing that “Helen confided {this information} to a close Nauvoo friend,” without revealing its anti-Mormon origins.

To credit this story at face value, one must also admit that Helen told others in Nauvoo about the marriage (something she repeatedly emphasized she was not to do) and that she told a story at variance with all the others from her pen during a lifetime of staunch defense of plural marriage.

Generally, this statement isn't given a lot of credibility - at least in terms of discussing a sexual relationship. There is no question that Helen resented the sealing to Joseph Smith for a time - because of the sealing, she wasn't allowed to socialize with her friends in some ways (dances, social events with other young singles). This generally reflects the opposite of the argument that is sometimes made: if the marriage had been consummated, then Helen would have understood that she was married, and known why she couldn't participate with her single friends in social activities. Instead it seems implied that she was treated as if she was already married, but without it being clear to her that she was actually married.

So to sum up, I think people who seek to better understand the marriage of Helen Mar Kimball to Joseph Smith need to study the issue in context.  This takes time and effort, but my concern is that many people are drawing conclusions about it based much more on ignorance an presentism, and much less on historical evidence.

I also think that folks interested in this topic also need to address the following issues:

1. That Heber Kimball arranged the marriage of his daughter to Joseph Smith, and his apparent motives for doing so.
2. The novel and not-yet-fully-fleshed-out concept of "sealing" of family members to each other (generational/dynastic, as contrasted with marital).
3. The apparent "mirroring" of Joseph Smith's comments to Helen (about saving her family) with D&C 132 (see Fluhman's observations above).
4. Helen setting limits on her 14-year-old-girl perspective (“I confess that I was too young or too ‘foolish’ to comprehend and appreciate all...").
5. The early Saints' understanding of the "Law of Adoption," and the interplay between it and the concept of marital "sealing" (eternal marriage) and familial/generational/dynastic "sealing."  It is interesting to me that FAIR has a portion of its website devoted to "Mormonism and polygamy/The Law of Adoption."  I think this interplay is very important in understanding much of Joseph Smith's polygamy, and yet it is often ignored or glossed over.
6. The evidence of non-consummation (which would militate in favor of the marriage as - as the above item describes - "dynastic" (as opposed to romantic/sexual)).
7. The entirety of Helen's perspective, not cherry-picked portions which have been separated from their context, perhaps to the point of materially distorting Helen's own words.
8. The apparent need for critics to go far afield and rely on a suspect (perhaps even specious) historical source to pit Helen against her family and against Joseph Smith.  That the critics hide the source of the purported quote, and even dissemble about it, is also fairly telling.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 4, 2019 by smac97

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Short Answer: No.  Not really.

Sorry smac, but yes that is exactly what that promise states.  You can try to analyze it or pick it apart,  but this promise as stated "ensures" her "eternal salvation & exaltation" and that of ALL  her kindred and father's household too:

“If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.”

The only wiggle room here that I see is that maybe she heard wrong or misunderstood.  But the fact remains that this is what she believed she was agreeing to (if she married Joseph).  We have that in her own writing and her own words.  That promise is very clear as stated.  And of course, this was all done behind Emma's back like most of Joseph's marriages were.....so more lies and deceit.  How was that right to do?

And I'll state once again that I firmly believe that Helen is the true hero here (not Heber or Joseph).  What a remarkably strong and faithful woman she was.  If one has not studied her life and writings, I highly recommend doing so. 

(And I've read Hales' take on this and I am not impressed just as I don't particularly care for much of what he writes....just my opinion).  

But I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll leave it at that.  

Edited September 4, 2019 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Sorry smac, but yes that is exactly what that promise states.  You can try to analyze it or pick it apart,  but this promise as stated "ensures" her "eternal salvation & exaltation" and that of ALL  her kindred and father's household too:

“If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.”

The only wiggle room here that I see is that maybe she heard wrong or misunderstood. 

If that is what he said I see no issue with it.

[JLHPROF]

56 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The command might not have been, but the methods used by men (humans who are fallible) were not always moral or and were manipulative at times.  I do agree that the word "coercion" is too strong (unless one is referring to what Joseph related took place with the angel threatening him with destruction if he did not live polygamy).  But he then used that to get women to agree to marry him (that he'd be destroyed if they didn't agree to be his wife).  Some went along with that and married him, but not all that he attempted this with married him.

I still don't see the problem here.  Every command God gives comes with blessings for obedience and cursings for disobedience.  I am not seeing any difference.

[ALarson]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

I still don't see the problem here.  Every command God gives comes with blessings for obedience and cursings for disobedience.  I am not seeing any difference.

Hey JLHPROF!  

I was just now reading an older thread regarding this very topic.  You stated that this indeed was the same as the blessings related to the 2nd anointing (I'm paraphrasing, so correct me if that's inaccurate).  And that the posterity (children, etc.)  of those who receive their 2nd anointing are very much promised salvation and exaltation too.

Is that still what you believe?

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I still don't see the problem here.  Every command God gives comes with blessings for obedience and cursings for disobedience.  I am not seeing any difference.

I understand and agree IF this was indeed a commandment from God (to live polygamy).  I personally do not believe it was, but I know other disagree.

Once again....even if it was a commandment, that's not what I have an issue with.  It's the lies, betrayal and deceit by Joseph (and others) that I cannot condone.  I honestly have no issue with people living polygamy if it's done between all consenting adults.

Edited September 4, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Short Answer: No.  Not really.

Sorry smac, but yes that is exactly what that promise states. 

Sorry, ALarson, but no, not really.

Quote

You can try to analyze it or pick it apart, but this promise as stated "ensures" her eternal salvation and ALL of her kindred and father's household:

“If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.”

And you can try to ignore the context and other information provided by Helen herself, as well as other sources.  I won't be joining you in that, though.

Quote

The only wiggle room here that I see is that maybe she heard wrong or misunderstood. 

"I see" being the operative words here.

You wrote and posted your response only ten minutes after I posted my thoughts.  To me, this indicates you didn't read or consider my post, nor did you read the sources I provided.

Again, I think people who seek to better understand the marriage of Helen Mar Kimball to Joseph Smith need to study the issue in context.  This takes time and effort, but my concern is that many people are drawing conclusions about it based much more on ignorance an presentism, and much less on historical evidence.

Quote

But the fact remains that this is what she believed she was agreeing to (if she married Joseph). 

Actually, if you had read my post, you would see there are a lot more "facts" to be considered.  But you aren't considering them.  You are ignoring them.

I think that's a mistake.

Quote

We have that in her own writing and her own words. 

We also have her saying, "in her own writing and her own words," the following (from the Hales' website, which you apparently didn't bother to read):

Quote

This quotation is sometimes cited by critics as solid evidence that the Prophet promised exaltation to at least one of his plural wives and her family if they would agree to the marriage. Typically omitted from such accounts is the fact that one year later Helen clarified that she may not have understood everything correctly: “I confess that I was too young or too ‘foolish’ to comprehend and appreciate all” that Joseph Smith then taught.

Contemporaneous evidence from more mature family members who were better positioned to “comprehend and appreciate” the Prophet’s promises to Helen demonstrates that her statement reflects her misunderstanding of the blessings predicated on this sealing.

With respect, I don't think we can draw broad conclusions about this issue by decontextualizing Helen's paraphrase of Joseph Smith's comment to her during her childhood ("If you will take this step...") from her substantial qualification of her recollection of the events of her childhood ("I confess that I was too young..."), and also from the rest of the historical record. 

That is precisely what you are doing.

Quote

That promise is very clear as stated. 

"That promise" being hearsay.

"That promise" being recollected by Helen in 1881, about forty years after the fact.

"That promise" being heavily qualified by Helen herself ("I confess that I was too young or too ‘foolish’ to comprehend and appreciate all {that Joseph Smith then taught}").

"That promise" being substantially similar to the concepts described in D&C 132 (see Fluhman's "mirror" comments above, which you apparently didn't bother to read).

"That promise" being fairly at variance against what Joseph Smith and Helen's parents were teaching (see the first excerpt from the Hales' website above, which you apparently didn't bother to read).

You are attempting to bolster your personal opinion here by attributing it to Helen.  You are also apparently keen heavily decontextualizing Helen's paraphrase of Joseph Smith, and apparently expecting others to follow suit.  I don't think either is appropriate.

Quote

And I'll state once again that I firmly believe that Helen is the true hero here (not Heber or Joseph). 

I don't think Helen would appreciate people she never met attempting to weaponize her words against her father and Joseph Smith.

Quote

What a remarkably strong and faithful woman she was.  If one has not studied her life and writings, I highly recommend doing so. 

So do I.  And yet only one of us is consdering her paraphrase of Joseph Smith's "promise" to her in the context of "her life and writings."

Quote

(And I've read Hales' take on this and I am not impressed just as I don't particularly care for much of what he writes....just my opinion).  

And I'm not impressed with your wholesale blowing off of Hales' extensive scholarship on this issue, particularly with no explanation or countervailing reasoning/data.

Quote

But I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll leave it at that.  

As you like.  But you'll understand why I find your position on this issue to be facile and uninformed.

If a person is bound and determined to think the worst of Joseph Smith, then contextualizing the story of Helen Mar Kimball is an uncomfortable task.  On the other hand, a reasoned and non-presentist and informed approach to this issue can be quite illuminating.

As with most adversarial discussions about the life and character of Joseph Smith, a passage of scripture has come to mine, with which I will close: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."  (Mormon 9:31)

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 4, 2019 by smac97

[ALarson]

JLHPROF....

I found your response (on the older thread) regarding this specific promise made to Helen:

Quote

 

It refers directly to this teaching which is related to the second anointing:

 

“When a seal is put upon the father and mother, it secures their posterity, so that they cannot be lost, but will be saved by virtue of the covenant of their father and mother."  TPJS pg 321 and in the 2014 March Ensign

 

We REALLY like to assume that all blessings/damnation received there are the direct result of reward/punishment for our actions here.  The gospel truth is much more complex.

 

 

(I thought I'd post your actual words rather than just paraphrasing it  )

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We also have her saying, "in her own writing and her own words," the following (from the Hales' website, which you apparently didn't bother to read):

No, I stated that I had read what Hales has written on this (maybe you misunderstood). 

Helen still wrote out that promise (in her own words and her own records) as being what she believed was offered to her if she married Joseph.  

I just disagree with much of what Hales writes and am not real impressed with some of his reasoning (just my opinion).  I think he's a good man and a good apologist, but (IMO), he leaves out some details or just ignores other information (which is normal to do and that happens on both sides).  His writings are definitely good to read and take into account along with other information out there.

Edited September 4, 2019 by ALarson

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

That's how I see it.  And it's ridiculous to compare offering this (her family's salvation) to a 14 year old girl if she married a 37 year old man (who already had a legal wife and dozens of plural wives) to paying tithing or you're going to be burned.  IMO, there is absolutely no way to view this incident without acknowledging that this 14 year old was pressured to agree to this marriage in order to "ensure" her "eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred".  One has to wonder how that is even possible to promise anyone?  Do we even know if ALL of her kindred remained in the church or are they all active in the church today (those who are alive)?

I agree.  It’s interesting now to see how this promise is closely tied to the 2nd anointing (or calling and election made sure), if I’m understanding you and JLHPROF.

My questions then would be, had Helen received her 2nd anointing (to receive that promise)?

Also, had Heber & Vilate received their 2nd anointing before this?  If so, wouldn’t they (and therefore Helen if I’m following JLHPROF’s belief) already have received the promise of exaltation and eternal life?

Why offer that to Helen if it was already in place or had already been done?

Edited September 4, 2019 by JulieM

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

We also have her saying, "in her own writing and her own words," the following (from the Hales' website, which you apparently didn't bother to read):

No, I stated that I had read what Hales has written on this (maybe you misunderstood). 

So you read it, but are ignoring it?  

You read it, but you are not accounting for it?

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Helen still wrote out that promise (in her own words and her own records) as being what she believed was offered to her if she married Joseph.  

Yes.  But she "wrote out that promise" about 40 years after it was spoken to her. 

And she qualified "what she believed was offered to her" ("I confess that I was too young or too ‘foolish’ to comprehend and appreciate all {that Joseph Smith then taught}").

And her recollection of "what she believed was offered" was fairly at variance against what Joseph Smith and Helen's parents were teaching.

And "what she believed was offered," when viewed in context, can readily be seen as substantially similar to the concepts described in D&C 132.

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I just disagree with much of what Hales writes and am not real impressed with some of his reasoning (just my opinion). 

No scholarship is perfect, but Hales, and Fluhman, and FAIR, have compiled a lot of substantive and contextualizing information and reasoning about this issue.  I excerpted some portions of it.

As between the data/reasoning/conclusions presented by Hales/Fluhman/FAIR, and your unexplained and unreasoned and unsubstantiated "am not real impressed" opinion, I find the former quite a bit more compelling.

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think he's a good man and a good apologist, but (IMO), he leaves out some details or just ignores other information (which is normal to do and that happens on both sides).  His writings are definitely good to read and take into account along with other information out there.

Indeed.

Thanks

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Why offer that to Helen if it was already in place or had already been done?

Why, indeed?

That is certainly a question worth exploring.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So you read it, but are ignoring it?  

LOL.  You keep trying to put words in my mouth.  I have never stated that I'm ignoring what he wrote....read what I've actually posted.

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  But she "wrote out that promise" about 40 years after it was spoken to her. 

Yes and I've acknowledged that what we have in her own records and in her own writing is what she remembers the promise to be.  I've also stated that the only wiggle room we may have is that she misunderstood the promise or remembered it wrong.  I've acknowledged that.  But the fact remains that when she recorded it, she wrote it as a very specific promise and wrote it as she understood and remembered.

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I agree.  It’s interesting now to see how this promise is closely tied to the 2nd anointing (or calling and election made sure), if I’m understanding you and JLHPROF.

My questions then would be, had Helen received her 2nd anointing (to receive that promise)?

Also, had Heber & Vilate received their 2nd anointing before this?  If so, wouldn’t they (and therefore Helen if I’m following JLHPROF’s belief) already have received the promise of exaltation and eternal life?

Why offer that to Helen if it was already in place or had already been done?

All great questions.  Why pressure her to marry Joseph by promising her something that had already been done (through her Mother and Father's 2nd anointing)?

I'll look to see if that was the case, but iirc, those 2nd anointings had been done by that date (for Heber and Vilate).

Of course one can say that the promise Joseph made to Helen was contingent on her receiving her own 2nd anointing....but why add the guarantee of her Father's exaltation and eternal life if he'd already received that promise?

I also have a difficult time believing that ALL of her kindred were also covered under this promise if she married Joseph.  

Edited September 4, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

 

We also have her saying, "in her own writing and her own words," the following (from the Hales' website, which you apparently didn't bother to read):

This quotation is sometimes cited by critics as solid evidence that the Prophet promised exaltation to at least one of his plural wives and her family if they would agree to the marriage. Typically omitted from such accounts is the fact that one year later Helen clarified that she may not have understood everything correctly: “I confess that I was too young or too ‘foolish’ to comprehend and appreciate all” that Joseph Smith then taught.

Contemporaneous evidence from more mature family members who were better positioned to “comprehend and appreciate” the Prophet’s promises to Helen demonstrates that her statement reflects her misunderstanding of the blessings predicated on this sealing.

 

No, I stated that I had read what Hales has written on this (maybe you misunderstood). 

 

So you read it, but are ignoring it?  

LOL.  You keep trying to put words in my mouth. 

Not at all.  I am just not seeing any evidence that you have read it.  You aren't accounting for it.  

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes and I've acknowledged that what we have in her own records and in her own writing is what she remembers the promise to be. 

But you are ignoring that "what she remembers the promise to be" was a hearsay statement recollected nearly 40 years after the fact.

You are ignoring that she qualified "what she remembers the promise to be" ("I confess that I was too young or too ‘foolish’ to comprehend and appreciate all {that Joseph Smith then taught}").

You are ignoring that "what she remembers the promise to be" was fairly at variance against what Joseph Smith and Helen's parents were teaching.

You are ignoring that "what she remembers the promise to be," when viewed in context, can readily be seen as substantially similar to the concepts described in D&C 132.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've also stated that the only wiggle room we may have is that she misunderstood the promise or remembered it wrong.  I've acknowledged that. 

There's huge amounts of "wiggle room" here.  Room to contextualize.  Room to be cautious about drawing unwarranted conclusions.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But the fact remains that when she recorded it, she wrote it as a very specific promise and wrote it as she understood and remembered.

That you keep trying to bolster this point only further demonstrates the weakness of it.  Repeatedly refusing to address and account for the other factors noted by Hales/Fluhman/FAIR, and repeatedly reverting to conclusory statements like "the fact remains," sounds like you really, really don't want to approach this issue in context.

Thanks,

-SMac

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

All great questions.  Why pressure her to marry Joseph by promising her something that had already been done (through her Mother and Father's 2nd anointing)?

I'll look to see if that was the case, but iirc, those 2nd anointings had been done by that date (for Heber and Vilate).

Of course one can say that the promise Joseph made to Helen was contingent on her receiving her own 2nd anointing....but why add the guarantee of her Father's exaltation and eternal life if he'd already received that promise?

I also have a difficult time believing that ALL of her kindred were also covered under this promise if she married Joseph.  

I agree.

Hopefully, JLHPROF will return and add to what he posted (about this promise pertaining to the 2nd anointing) and answer some of our questions with his opinions and beliefs.  It’s an interesting subject (for me at least!).

We are pretty much left with what Helen stated the promise was (or what she remembered or believed it to be).   She was pretty clear about that.

I am going to read more about her life now too!

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, ALarson said:

All great questions.  Why pressure her to marry Joseph by promising her something that had already been done (through her Mother and Father's 2nd anointing)?

Why, indeed?

Attributing the arranged marriage to purported evil motives of Joseph Smith and Heber Kimball doesn't really wash.

Quote

I'll look to see if that was the case, but iirc, those 2nd anointings had been done by that date (for Heber and Vilate).

Of course one can say that the promise Joseph made to Helen was contingent on her receiving her own 2nd anointing.

What?  A promise of salvation was impliedly contingent?

Isn't that JLHPROF's point?  Isn't that Fluhman's point here (see above link):

Quote

Looking back across the years, she wrote that those benefits had constituted a large share of her motivation to enter into the marriage: “Joseph . . . came next morning & with my parents I heard him teach & explain the principle of Celestial marrage—after which he said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation & that of your father’s household & all of your kindred. This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.” Neither a starry-eyed nor love-struck proposal, Joseph Smith’s to Helen resembles others recorded by the Prophet’s wives; each reported that he couched his proposal in the language of revelation, obedience to God’s law, and the promise of eternal rewards.  Joseph Smith’s proposals, in other words, mirrored the 1843 revelation on celestial marriage (see D&C 132), which highlighted law (see vv. 3–7, 11–12, 15–19, 21, 24–28, 31–34, 37, 48, 54, 58–66), obedience (see vv. 3–5, 53–55, 64–66), and afterlife blessings (see vv. 19–24, 55, 63). 

And if so, doesn't that rather deflate the accusation that Joseph Smith coerced Helen? 

Isn't is possible that Joseph, Heber, Vilate, and perhaps even Helen all understood that Joseph's promise was contingent on obedience (Helen's, her family members', etc.)?

Quote

but why add the guarantee of her Father's exaltation and eternal life if he'd already received that promise?

Why, indeed?

How is it "coercive" is it to promise salvation that's already been promised before?

Or is it possible that there was no coercion at all?  That those who seek decontextualize Helen's story so as to leverage Helen against her own father, and against Joseph Smith, are wrong to do so?

Quote

I also have a difficult time believing that ALL of her kindred were also covered under this promise if she married Joseph.  

I do, too.  Which pretty much debunks the "Joseph coerced Helen into marriage by promising unconditional and universal salvation to her and her entire family" theory.

It also accounts for the variance between the promise (as she recollected it, 40 years after the fact) and the teachings of Joseph Smith and her parents.

It also explains the similarities between the promise (as she recollected it, 40 years after the fact) and D&C 132 (including the need for saving ordinances to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise).

In the end, is it possible that Joseph Smith was trying to explain newly-revealed and sacred and difficult-to-comprehend and not-fully-understood principles of eternity to a 14-year old girl? 

Is it possible that the girl might have had some error in her understanding or recollection of what Joseph said?

Is it possible that attempts to exploit Helen's story, to decontextualize it, to rely on innuendo and worst assumptions so as to turn it into a lurid story of attempted debauchery, to weaponize it against her father and against Joseph Smith, do violence not only to them, but to Helen as well?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 4, 2019 by smac97

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Attributing the arranged marriage to purported evil motives of Joseph Smith and Heber Kimball doesn't really wash.

Something I haven't done.  I do believe that Helen is the one who emerges as the hero in this story (and not Joseph or Heber).....but I do not believe they were evil men.  Just the opposite.

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Isn't is possible that Joseph, Heber, Vilate, and perhaps even Helen all understood that Joseph's promise was contingent on obedience (Helen's, her family members', etc.)?

I thought you've continually posted here that Helen didn't understand the promise or got it wrong?

 

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How is it "coercive" is it to promise salvation that's already been promised before?

I've stated I disagree that "coercion" was used (with any of Joseph's marriages), so maybe you're thinking of another poster here?  I do believe there was pressure put on Helen (at a very young age) to marry Joseph.  I stand by that opinion too and won't change my mind on that.  But there's a difference between putting pressure on someone and using coercion:

Quote

 

co·er·cion

the use of force or threats to persuade someone to do something that they are unwilling to do

 

I do not believe Joseph did this to any of the women or used force to get them to agree to be his plural wife (coercion).

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Which pretty much debunks the "Joseph coerced Helen into marriage by promising unconditional and universal salvation to her and her entire family" theory.

Once again, I've never stated that "Joseph coerced Helen into marriage".  So please stop putting things like that in quotes as if they were my words.  They are not.

Edited September 4, 2019 by ALarson

[Teancum]

On 8/22/2019 at 3:04 PM, JulieM said:

Well stated!!  I don’t see the example of Judas being a very comparable one to knowingly calling a sexual predator to be a Bishop.  (Or even unknowingly calling one.)

I think it’s better to just acknowledge that all callings are not always inspired callings.  Good men make mistakes and misjudge other’s character sometimes.  Predators can be expert at hiding who they are and their behaviors.  

That makes much more sense than believing it was done on purpose (a predator called as Bishop) because it was part of God’s plan as in the role that Judas played.

Personally I think it is better to acknowledge calling are rarely, if ever, inspired. But I am just an awful skeptic these days.

Also regarding Cinepro's comment about Judas filling a higher purpose....I have pondered such things quite a bit and have no answer. It seems Judas had no chance.  Ya know, if someone had to do it and Judas got the short straw isn't that essentially predestination?  And a God that does that to a sentient being seems like a pretty awful God to me.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Something I haven't done.  I do believe that Helen is the one who emerges as the hero in this story (and not Joseph or Heber).....but I do not believe they were evil men.  Just the opposite.

Labeling Helen as a "hero" seems to implicate her father and Joseph as the "villains."

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Isn't is possible that Joseph, Heber, Vilate, and perhaps even Helen all understood that Joseph's promise was contingent on obedience (Helen's, her family members', etc.)?

I thought you've continually posted here that Helen didn't understand the promise or got it wrong?

I think she perhaps "didn't {fully} understand the promise or got it {partly} wrong when she was fourteen," yes.

And perhaps part of what she did not fully understand, part of what she got partly wrong, is the contingency of the promise (whether implied or otherwise).

JLHPROF was spot on here: "I really have no idea what you are referring to as 'coercive'.  The command to live polygamy was no more coercive that the requirement to be baptized, pay tithing, say your prayers, wear the garments."

People who seek to weaponize the story of Helen Mar Kimball against Joseph Smith, who want to use it as evidence that Joseph Smith "coerced" a 14-year-old girl into an arranged marriage, necessarily rely on his purported "promise" to be non-contingent.  Absolute and clear-cut.  No nuance.  No context needed.  No implications.  No contingencies.  Essentially, it was a straight-up bribe (or, worse, straight-up extortion).  That is the conclusion we are supposed to reach.

But that conclusion doesn't really work when examined in context, under the light of the extant historical information we have about Helen, her circumstances, her parents, Joseph Smith, D&C 132, and so on.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've stated I disagree that "coercion" was used (with any of Joseph's marriages), so maybe you're thinking of another poster here?  I do believe there was pressure put on Helen (at a very young age) to marry Joseph.  I stand by that opinion too and won't change my mind on that.

I think that's a fair conclusion.

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Once again, I've never stated that "Joseph coerced Helen into marriage".  So please stop putting things like that in quotes as if they were my words.  They are not.

Let's re-cap:

1. When Julie says "Well, there most definitely was coercion involved" (so not just a possibility of coercion, but a firmly-established-and-beyond-reasonable-dispute-"most-definite" presumption of coercion) and

2. When Julie then proceeds to discuss this issue with that firmly-established-and-beyond-reasonable-dispute-"most-definite" presumption of coercion in place, and

3. When Julie then asks (again, with a presumption of coercion) whether Joseph Smith's purported "promise" was "the same as promising that their calling and election would be made sure," and

4. When I answer "No.  Not really" (followed by a much lengtheir and substantive response, which you almost entirely ignore), and

5. When you then chime in with "Sorry, smac, but yes that is exactly what that promise states," 

well, perhaps you can understand why I understood you as arguing for the proposition that, in essence, "Joseph coerced Helen into marriage."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Teancum]

On 8/22/2019 at 4:29 PM, let’s roll said:

God once flooded the whole earth resulting in the death of everyone on the planet (children included), save for a few on a boat.  

Millions of God’s children die each year from starvation, and have each year for as long as any of us have been alive, and long before.

Each of us have had our entire life to ponder and inquire of God as to why those things are so.

For those of us who have done so, I trust the answers and assurances we’ve received give us insight into the questions posed in this thread.

For those who have yet to receive those answers and assurances, God has promised they are available to those who inquire of Him with the requisite intent.

Your first tow points are really good arguments for one to conclude that there may not be a god at all. Your fourth item is good as well though I imagine the conclusions people make are allover the board. 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Labeling Helen as a "hero" seems to implicate her father and Joseph as the "villains."

Not in my opinion.  That's not what I believe.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

well, perhaps you can understand why I understood you as arguing for the proposition that, in essence, "Joseph coerced Helen into marriage."

I believe there are a couple of other posters who have used that word, but I have not.  I specifically stated that I disagreed with using it (and early on in the discussion regarding this).  Maybe you missed that though....

 

Edited September 4, 2019 by ALarson