Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: baura ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 07:32AM

The Church essay on plural marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo contains the following line concerning 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball's "marriage" to JS:

"Helen Mar Kimball spoke of her sealing to Joseph as being “for
eternity alone,” suggesting that the relationship did not
involve sexual relations."

This is footnoted to "Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, Autobiography, [2], Church History Library, Salt Lake City."

Although I don't have access to the Church History Library, in Salt Lake City, I have read other writings by Helen Mar Kimball concerning her "marriage" to Joseph Smith. In those writings she uses the term "for eternity alone" as her REASON for agreeing to the "marriage," and not as a description of the marriage.

She was promised the eternal exaltation of her family if she entered into the "marriage," and gives the reason for agreeing to it as "for eternity alone."

In a retrospective poem about her marriage to JS, written in 1881, she wrote:

"I thought through this life my time will be my own
The step I now am taking's FOR ETERNITY ALONE,
No one need be the wiser, through time I shall be free,
And as the past hath been the future still will be."
(emphasis added)

This by itself could be interpreted to mean that the marriage was for eternity only, or it could mean that her reason for agreeing to it was "for eternity alone," and that the "marriage" itself could have been for time and eternity.

This is strongly hinted at in the next stanzas of the poem:

"To my guileless heart all free from worldly care
And full of blissful hopes—and youthful visions rare
The world seemed bright the thret'ning clouds were kept
From sight and all looked fair but pitying angels wept.

"Then saw my youthful friends grow shy and cold,
And poisonous darts from sland'rous tongues were hurled,
Untutor'd heart in thy gen'rous sacrifice,
Thou did'st not weigh the cost nor know the bitter price;

"Thy happy dreems all o'er thou' it doom'd alas to be
Barr'd out from social scenes by this thy destiny,
And o're thy sad'nd mem'ries of sweet departed joys
Thy sicken'd heart will brood and imagine future woes,"


Why would she be "barred from social scenes" if the "marriage" were for eternity only? Why would "youthful friends grow shy and cold, And poisonous darts from sland'rous tongues" be "hurled." if it were just a secret ceremony having nothing to do with this life? Why would there be "sad'nd mem'ries of sweet departed joys" if the "marriage" only concerned the afterlife?

A friend of Helen who left the Church in Nauvoo reported that Helen said to her,

"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"
--Catherine Lewis, Narrative of Some of the Proceedings of the Mormons

Are the anonymous authors of the essay taking a phrase out of context to give a false impression? Is the essay being dishonest?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: runtu ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 07:36AM

To me, that is the most dishonest part of the essay (and that's saying something). She says quite clearly that she *thought* it was for eternity alone but learned she had been mistaken.

There's not a single reference anywhere in the essay that clearly points to eternity-only sealings being practiced, yet they claim that "several" women said they were in such non-sexual marriages. The only citations are to Brian Hales. If they had solid sources, they would provide them. That they had to resort to a misrepresentation of what Helen Kimball said tells me that they have no such sources.

Color me unimpressed.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: baura ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 08:05AM

runtu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only citations are to Brian Hales.
> If they had solid sources, they would provide
> them.

Now we know who wrote the essay.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: runtu ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 08:11AM

Brian Hales is on record as saying he wasn't involved in writing the essay. That said, he is the most significant apologist writing on the subject of early polygamy. I don't find his stuff particularly convincing, but apparently the folks who wrote the essay did.

Again, if there is direct evidence of "eternity only" sealings, we would see it. That they can't produce any such evidence just shows that they are assuming things without evidence.

The funny thing is that they tried to be "open" without providing the full story, apparently in the hope that they could put a positive spin on the issue and avoid freaking people out. Needless to say, it's been a huge failure.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: baura ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 09:01AM

runtu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The funny thing is that they tried to be "open"
> without providing the full story, apparently in
> the hope that they could put a positive spin on
> the issue and avoid freaking people out. Needless
> to say, it's been a huge failure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 07:37AM

As part of Joseph Smith's brimming quiver of teenager brides, in May 1843, in Smith's Nauvoo store, he married an underage 14-year-old female named Helen Mar Kimball. Helen's father, Heber C. Kimball, officiated the wedding of his underage daughter to Smith.

Helen was the youngest of Smith's brides--and according to Helen, he had sex with her. Helen wrote about how her marriage to Smith was orchestrated by her father:

"Having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, he (my father) offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet's own mouth. My father had but one Ewe Lamb, but willingly laid her upon the altar: how cruel this seemed to my mother whose heartstrings were already stretched unil they were ready to snap asunder, for she had already taken Sarah Noon to wife and she thought she had made sufficient sacrifice but the Lord required more."

Smith pressured Helen to marry him, giving her only 24 hours to give him answer. Helen wrote:

"[My father] left me to reflect upon it for the next 24 hours. . . . I was skeptical--one minute [I] believed, then doubted. I thought of the love and tenderness that he felt for his only daughter and I knew that he would not cast me off, and this was the only convincing proof that I had of its being right.”

The next day, Smith came by to explain to Helen the “Law of Celestial Marriage,” and, having done that, to take her as his latest bride. Helen described Smith's pitch:

“After which he said to me, 'If you 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."

Helen's mother was none too pleased with the marriage, as Helen explains:

"None but God and his angels could see my mother's bleeding heart. When Joseph asked her if she was willing, she replied 'If Helen is willing I have nothing more to say.' She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older and who better understood the step they were taking, and to see her child, who had yet seen her fifteenth summer, following the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was hidden from me."

Helen was under the unfortunate misimpression that her marriage to Smith was merely “dynastic.” She was to discover soon enough, however, that it was sexual. Helen later confessed to a close friend in Nauvoo:

"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.”

(Helen Mar Whitney journal: Helen Mar autobiography: “Woman's Exponent,” 1880; reprinted in “A Woman's View;” FamilySearch.com record for Joseph Smith, Jr.; and Van Wagoner, “Mormon Polygamy: A History,” p. 53; cited in ibid)
_____


All that said and despite feeling taken advantage of by Smith, misled by her father about the sexual nature of a polygamous union and confused about its declared truthfulness, Helen ultimately--under the constant pressure of male Mormon priesthood "power"--accepted polygamy as a divinvely-revealed principle that, while she admitted she did not fully understand, nonetheless, obedience to which was a demonstration of faith to God. In her autobiography, she wrote:

"With all the false traditions in which we were born, and in consequence of the degenerate tide with which the human family has been drifting for generations past, and as the Lord had no organized priesthood on the earth, it is not to be wondered at that in our ignorance of His ways the feelings of our natures should rebel against the doctrine of a plurality of wives.

"I remember how I felt, but which would be a difficult matter to describe--the various thoughts, fears and temptations that flashed through my mind when the principle was first introduced to me by my father [Heber C. Kimball], who one morning in the summer of 1843, without any preliminaries, asked me if I would believe him if he told me that it was right for married men to take other wives, can be better imagined than told.

"But suffice it to say the first impulse was anger, for I thought he had only said it to test my virtue, as I had heard that tales of this kind had been published by such characters as the Higbees, Foster and Bennett, but which I supposed were without any foundation. My sensibilities were painfully touched. I felt such a sense of personal injury and displeasure for to mention such a thing to me I thought altogether unworthy of my father, and as quick as he spoke, I replied to him, short and emphatically, "No, I wouldn't!" I had always been taught to believe it a heinous crime, improper and unnatural, and I indignantly resented it.

"This was the first time that I ever openly manifested anger towards him, but I was somewhat surprised at his countenance, as he seemed rather pleased than otherwise. Then he commenced talking seriously, and reasoned and explained the principle, and why it was again to be established upon the earth, etc., but did not tell me then that anyone had yet practiced it, but left me to reflect upon it for the next twenty-four hours, during which time I was filled with various and conflicting ideas.

"I was skeptical--one minute believed, then doubted. I thought of the love and tenderness that he felt for his only daughter, and I knew that he would not cast her off, and this was the only convincing proof that I had of its being right. I knew that he loved me too well to teach me anything that was not strictly pure, virtuous and exalting in its tendencies; and no one else could have influenced me at that time or brought me to accept of a doctrine so utterly repugnant and so contrary to all of our former ideas and traditions. This was just previous to his starting upon his last mission but one to the eastern states. Fearing that I might hear it from a wrong source, knowing, as he did, that there were those who would run before they were sent, and some would not hesitate to deceive and betray him and the brethren, he thought it best that I should hear it from his own lips.

"The next day the Prophet [Joseph Smith] called at our house, and I sat with my father and mother and heard him teach the principle and explain it more fully, and I believed it, but I had no proofs, only his and my father's testimony. I thought that sufficient, and did not deem it necessary to seek for any further, but had I been differently situated like many were without a father and a mother to love and counsel me, probably my dependence, like theirs, would have been on the Lord, but I leaned not upon His arm.

"My father was my teacher and revelator, and I saw no necessity then for further testimony; but in after years the Lord, in His far-seeing and infinite mercy, suffered me to pass through the rough waves of experience and in sorrow and affliction, I learned that most important lesson, that in Him alone must I trust, and not in weak and sinful man; and that it was absolutely necessary for each one to obtain a living witness and testimony for him or herself, and not for another, to the truth of this latter-day work, to be able to stand, and that like Saul, we 'must suffer for His name's sake.'
Then I learned that 'the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,' and that 'He is nigh unto all those that call upon Him in truth, and healeth the broken in heart and bindeth up their wounds.'"

(see Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, "Autobiography," circa 1839-1846, entitled "Life Incidents," published in "Woman's Exponent," 9-10 [1880-82]; and "Scenes and Incidents in Nauvoo," in "Woman's Exponent 11" [1882-83], at: http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/HWhitney.html)

**********


In the end, Helen Mar Kimball gave in to the man's world of Mormonism and surrendered herself to a life in its male-centric cave of polygamy--all in the name of faith.

Sad, indeed. She was a defiant, intelligent, inquisitive woman turned docile--unfortunately, like so many Mormon women victims of the Mormon Man Cult, hammered into submission by its patriarchs and then convinced brainwashed to believe and accept that it was all for her own good.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2014 04:35PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: baura ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 07:54AM

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> "I remember how I felt, but which would be a
> difficult matter to describe--the various
> thoughts, fears and temptations that flashed
> through my mind when the principle was first
> introduced to me by my father , who one morning in
> the summer of 1843, without any preliminaries,
> asked me if I would believe him if he told me that
> it was right for married men to take other wives,
> can be better imagined than told.
>
> "But suffice it to say the first impulse was
> anger, for I thought he had only said it to test
> my virtue, as I had heard that tales of this kind
> had been published by such characters as the
> Higbees, Foster and Bennett, but which I supposed
> were without any foundation. My sensibilities were
> painfully touched. I felt such a sense of personal
> injury and displeasure for to mention such a thing
> to me I thought altogether unworthy of my father,
> and as quick as he spoke, I replied to him, short
> and emphatically, "No, I wouldn't!" I had always
> been taught to believe it a heinous crime,
> improper and unnatural, and I indignantly resented
> it.
>
> "This was the first time that I ever openly
> manifested anger towards him, but I was somewhat
> surprised at his countenance, as he seemed rather
> pleased than otherwise. Then he commenced talking
> seriously, and reasoned and explained the
> principle, and why it was again to be established
> upon the earth, etc., but did not tell me then
> that anyone had yet practiced it, but left me to
> reflect upon it for the next twenty-four hours,
> during which time I was filled with various and
> conflicting ideas.
>
> "I was skeptical--one minute believed, then
> doubted. I thought of the love and tenderness that
> he felt for his only daughter, and I knew that he
> would not cast her off, and this was the only
> convincing proof that I had of its being right. I
> knew that he loved me too well to teach me
> anything that was not strictly pure, virtuous and
> exalting in its tendencies; and no one else could
> have influenced me at that time or brought me to
> accept of a doctrine so utterly repugnant and so
> contrary to all of our former ideas and
> traditions.

If the "marriage" were for eternity only, wouldn't that have
been part of the sales pitch? In her description of how it was
presented to her, there is no mention of "eternity only." The
whole thing only makes sense if it were for "time" also.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 07:56AM

. . . if she had known that the marriage involved more than the ceremony. In other words, she didn't know that sex would be part of the package.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: baura ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 08:19AM

Catherine Lewis' remark

"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"

was published in 1848.

Lewis was at this time an apostate and therefore, by Mormon
double-standards, not honest or reliable.

But let's look at Lewis' statement in the context of the time.
It was published when Helen Mar Kimball was still alive and
able to refute it. Helen never did. Also it was made during a
time when the Church denied that it practiced polygamy. It
also mentions "saying the salvation of our whole family
depended on it." This is quite a detail and fits exactly with
what Helen, herself, said years later. Therefore Catherine
Lewis must have gotten her information from Helen herself and
was not just "making up anti-Mormon lies."

One of the interesting things about the Nauvoo polygamy period
is that history has unmistakeably shown that the "anti-Mormon
apostates" were telling the truth and that the "prophets,
seers, and revelators" were blatantly lying.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: steve benson ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 04:24PM

That said, the fact that Lewis happened to be an apostatized critic of Mormonism does not necessarily negate the value or relevance of her account attributing certain remarks to Helen that were less than positive of her arranged marriage to Smith.

Hell, the "persecuted Mormon complex" (PMC, in the psyche lit :)] is a mindset where any and all criticism of Mormonism that is deemed by Mormons to be inherently "anti-Mormon"/"apostate-ish," is, therefore, automatically devoid of meaning, relevance, importance, worth or historicity. (In short, not nice?--end of story). Insecure, uninformed,mind-manipulated Mormons want everyone to embrace their same blindered cul-de-sac world view (I use the term "world" loosely); i.e., if the observations made about their Cult are critical, they aren't worth pooh-pooh.

Lewis rocks. Because she is an "apostate" (and because she also happened to be correct).

FAIR can put that in its Jell-O and snort it.



Edited 12 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2014 04:39PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: randyj ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 08:28AM

"None but God and his angels could see my mother's bleeding heart. When Joseph asked her if she was willing, she replied 'If Helen is willing I have nothing more to say.' She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older and who better understood the step they were taking, and to see her child, who had yet seen her fifteenth summer, following the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was hidden from me."

If Helen's sealing to Smith was merely "dynastic," and a private religious ceremony which only a few people even knew about, then why the worry about "my mother's bleeding heart," "the sufferings of others," "the same thorny path," and "the misery which was sure to come?"

Why all the anguish and heartbreak? Obviously, the whole situation was viewed by Helen and her mother as negative and tragic, rather than a positive spiritual blessing. What aspects of this relationship could draw such negative feelings? The answer is obvious: A 14-year-old girl being forced into an illicit relationship with an older, powerful, married man.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: exodus ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 03:29PM

Bingo... why all the fuss for an "eternity only" marriage?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: seekyr ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 08:06AM

So after her marriage ceremony to JS, did she just return home to continue living with her parents? I mean, if it was for eternity alone, there should be no reason for her to move out of her home since her parents were able to support her.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: baura ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 08:23AM

Joseph Smith's secret plural "marriages" were not really
marriages in any sense of the word other than they DID involve
sex. The women did not move in with JS and he did not assume a
husband's role in providing for them. He did not publicly
acknowledge the "marriages" and, in fact, publicly (and
dishonestly) denied them in the strongest terms.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: runtu ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 08:29AM

My impression from the reading I've done is that the marriages were often little more than formalized "one-night stands" (for want of a better word). IMO, the main reason most of the "wives" didn't get pregnant is that Joseph Smith did not have an ongoing sexual relationship with many, if not most, of them. I don't remember which wife said it, but one of them said she spent the night with him just once.

Think of it this way: A man has sex with 30 women, once each. He has sex 30 times with the same woman. Which is more likely to result in a pregnancy?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: exodus ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 03:30PM

Some of JS's "marriages" were to girls living in his own home.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: lapsed ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 09:47AM

So where is it written that "for eternity only" doesn't include sex in this life? I looked at that statement and thought "the Emperor is buck naked."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: abinadi burns nli ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 10:02AM

That poem is devastatingly sad. I am experiencing a new depth of shame for having been fooled for so long and for spreading the lie and hurt as a missionary. Sick, sick sick. The hurt has gone on far too long. It is good that light is finally being shed on this monster.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Facsimile 3 ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 03:05PM

LDS have a very difficult time keeping their excuses straight. "Eternity only" sealings between married women and Joseph Smith, "law of adoption" sealings between men, and "dynastic" sealings to unite families. These are the three examples cited to support the idea of platonic polygamy, and yet NONE of these sealings exist today. Let's see how 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball fits into that context.

* Why not just seal Heber C. Kimball directly to Joseph Smith? Why did a "dynastic" sealing require marriage?

* If a marriage was required, why not use Heber's wife Vilate? After all, if there was no sex involved with Joseph Smith's other polyandrous marriages, then none would have been required with Vilate. Surely, that is what Joseph Smith was trying to do when he "dynastically" sealed himself to Marinda Johnson Hyde while her apostle husband was out of the country on a mission. To accept otherwise would be to admit that Joseph Smith stole Orson's wife for eternity.

* If Helen Mar Kimball's sealing were only "dynastic", why was she sequestered from her peers after the sealing?

* As others have mentioned, why was Helen's "dynastic" sealing so traumatic for her and her mother?

* Why was there absolutely NO MENTION of "dynastic" sealings until modern LDS scholars needed a way to conceal Joseph's sexual predation? In fact, who initially invented this term--was it Todd Compton?

* Why is there no *real* documentation for Helen being sealed only for eternity? The Church's recent essay took those words from her poem HORRIBLY out of context, which means there is no such documentation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2014 03:54PM by Facsimile 3.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: thedesertrat1 ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 03:28PM

This marriage was to satisfy his erect position

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: drilldoc ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 04:09PM

Dynastic or otherwise I think Orson Hyde's marriages sums up the tenor of these so-called dynastic, adopted, whatever you want to call them marriages. http://lifeafter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Polygamy-and-Mormon-Church-Leaders-Orson-Hyde-PDF.pdf
You'll notice that Apostle Hyde was married to a 15 year old at age 52 and had 6 children from her. Following marriages included ages 21, 20 and at age 60 an 18 year old, all of whom had children from him.
So to assume JS marriages were any different from Orson's would be at the very least silly.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: london ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 04:28PM

The entire account of Joseph Smith's first entreating Helen Mar Kimbal to "Plural Marriage" is worth a read. To me, nearly the entire account is damning of J.S.:

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/26-HelenMarKimball.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2014 04:31PM by london.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Longtooth ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 10:40PM

Joseph married as many as 40 women and produced no children except with Emma. At least none identified by DNA. How did he accomplish that?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: exodus ( )
Date: November 13, 2014 10:56PM

The jury is still out on Josephine Lyon ... And we were never able to test the baby of Olive Frost who died in infancy (which was said to be Joseph's). Mary Elizabeth Lightner said she knew of a few children from Joseph. It's kind of hard to round them all up when the practice was in secret.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: drilldoc ( )
Date: January 12, 2015 05:37PM

rumor has it that they also practiced abortion back then. So don't leave out that possibility.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: summer ( )
Date: January 12, 2015 07:30PM

Poor child. She deserved better than she got. If there is any sort of eternal justice, then she is owed by Joseph, big time. The Mormon church also owes her. They owe it to everyone to tell the truth about what Joseph Smith did to her.

Until that time, we stand with her. Joseph lied.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **    **  **     **  **     **  ********  **    ** 
 ***   **  **     **  ***   ***  **    **  ***   ** 
 ****  **  **     **  **** ****      **    ****  ** 
 ** ** **  **     **  ** *** **     **     ** ** ** 
 **  ****  **     **  **     **    **      **  **** 
 **   ***  **     **  **     **    **      **   *** 
 **    **   *******   **     **    **      **    **