- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was referring to the emphasis to procreate. Was that part of a temple sealing the same back then, and if so, it might shed some light on the issue of whether or not the marriages had sexual relations. Perhaps the time frame is incorrect. If not for sex, why did he marry them? If for their eternal progression and salvation, why aren’t we doing it today? Did God change his mind? Yes Tim it is a complex problem. There are many practices of the early restoration that we do not carry on today. Were they misunderstandings/mistakes? Were they divine but our needs today have changed? There are several other possibilities and I think pondering these questions help us along the path of our personal progression and knowledge. Quote:If not for sex, why did he marry them?
For a number of reasons that have nothing to do with sex.
I don’t mean that flippantly or dismissively – as in an apologetic nature, but there is ample evidence that there was no sex involved in most of the “marriages”. (Frankly, most of them weren’t anything like “marriage” as we think of it, so I prefer “sealings” to describe most of them – especially the last 2/3 – 3/4 of them.) The case that gets the most attention from lots of critics is Helen Mar Kimball, since she was the youngest – but there is no evidence whatsoever that there was any sex involved, she continued to live with her parents after the sealing, she never lived with Joseph, etc. Also, since I think it’s important for broader context, the average marriage age for women in Joseph’s time was about 20-22 – but the average age of the women who were sealed to Joseph was about 30. The oldest woman was almost 60.
This was a complex issue, and there is no one, easy answer. Again, I don’t say that apologetically; I say it factually. In some cases (Fannie Alger, for example), it might have been primarily about sexual attraction – but even that isn’t absolutely certain (although that’s my belief at this time). By the time it had evolved to dynastic sealing (Helen Mar Kimball and the young “wives” at that time, for example), it appears to not have been about sex at all.
Tim – You ask a good question…and one of the reason you have so many friends here with you on StayLDS….its one of those problems we are working to “get”. My gut tells me there were different reasons. Old lady? Mercy…, Josephs age…maybe some mercy…some sex (maybe with the desire to have more children…splitting hairs a bit but leaning that way in my mind). Younger girls? Likely younger mares in the stable for later potential use for progeny.
Not trying to be disrespectful…I think it was more about progeny than Wilt Chamberlain’esque numbers of sex partners. Though I think in some cases he might have struggled with keeping things under control…Nancy Rigdon story comes to mind. Joseph likely could have turned the church into a sex cult if he wanted to….but he seemed to be more interested in wives than unlimited coitus.
Just another whacky theory from the mind of Johnh
I don’t think some of them were anything other than eternal family links. Has this been quoted yet: Quote:
According to Kimball, her father wished to create an eternal link between his family and the family of Joseph Smith, Jr. (Anderson & Faulring 1998)[1]Todd Compton describes the reason for the marriage:
“The prophet’s marriage to her seems to have been largely dynastic—a union arranged by Joseph and Heber to seal the Kimball family to a seer, church president, and presiding patriarchal figure of the dispensation of the fullness of times” (Compton 1997, p. 486).
In the early summer of 1843, when she was 14 years old, Kimball’s father described the doctrine of plural marriage to her. He then asked if she would consent to be “sealed to Joseph” (Compton 1997, p. 498). Helen describes her reaction to this proposition,
“My father was the first to introduce it to me, which had a similar effect to a sudden shock of a small earthquake. When he found (after the first outburst of displeasure for supposed injury) that I received it meekly, he took the first opportunity to introduce Sarah Ann [Whitney] to me as Joseph’s wife” (Whitney 1880-1883).[2]
Kimball took 24 hours to respond to this request, and consented after Smith explained to her that it would ensure her eternal salvation along with that of her family. Helen was ‘’sealed’’ to Smith in May 1843. The marriage was kept secret, and Kimball continued to live with her parents (Anderson & Faulring 1998).
Yeah…sounds like what I would say too as it sounds better than…” you will make a fine wife one day” The idea of a 14 year old being pressured to marry not just save herself but her whole family is pretty nefarious
From a doctrine perspective the idea of a single sealing saving the whole family nullifies all forms of Christianity if it were true
This story more than most sounds like Joseph building his stable
mackay11 wrote:I don’t think some of them were anything other than eternal family links. Has this been quoted yet:
Quote:
According to Kimball, her father wished to create an eternal link between his family and the family of Joseph Smith, Jr. (Anderson & Faulring 1998)[1]Todd Compton describes the reason for the marriage:
“The prophet’s marriage to her seems to have been largely dynastic—a union arranged by Joseph and Heber to seal the Kimball family to a seer, church president, and presiding patriarchal figure of the dispensation of the fullness of times” (Compton 1997, p. 486).
In the early summer of 1843, when she was 14 years old, Kimball’s father described the doctrine of plural marriage to her. He then asked if she would consent to be “sealed to Joseph” (Compton 1997, p. 498). Helen describes her reaction to this proposition,
“My father was the first to introduce it to me, which had a similar effect to a sudden shock of a small earthquake. When he found (after the first outburst of displeasure for supposed injury) that I received it meekly, he took the first opportunity to introduce Sarah Ann [Whitney] to me as Joseph’s wife” (Whitney 1880-1883).[2]
Kimball took 24 hours to respond to this request, and consented after Smith explained to her that it would ensure her eternal salvation along with that of her family. Helen was ‘’sealed’’ to Smith in May 1843. The marriage was kept secret, and Kimball continued to live with her parents (Anderson & Faulring 1998).
johnh wrote:Yeah…sounds like what I would say too as it sounds better than…” you will make a fine wife one day”
The idea of a 14 year old being pressured to marry not just save herself but her whole family is pretty nefarious
From a doctrine perspective the idea of a single sealing saving the whole family nullifies all forms of Christianity if it were true
This story more than most sounds like Joseph building his stable
Emma: “Joseph, what the *#+! do you think you’re doing?”
Joseph (with a face like a kid with his hand in the cookie jar): “uh… eternal ties?”
(I see what you mean johnh)
mackay11 wrote:
Emma: “Joseph, what the *#+! do you think you’re doing?”Joseph (with a face like a kid with his hand in the cookie jar): “uh… eternal ties?”
(I see what you mean johnh)
😆 Just wanted to say that I don’t think I will ever again be able to keep a straight face when I hear the argument of spiritual ties again… I will forever think of the cookie jar facial expression. Thanks Mackay!:thumbup: eman wrote:mackay11 wrote:
Emma: “Joseph, what the *#+! do you think you’re doing?”Joseph (with a face like a kid with his hand in the cookie jar): “uh… eternal ties?”
(I see what you mean johnh)
😆 Just wanted to say that I don’t think I will ever again be able to keep a straight face when I hear the argument of spiritual ties again… I will forever think of the cookie jar facial expression. Thanks Mackay!:thumbup: You know what they say, if you don’t laugh you’ll cry
johnh wrote:Interesting Article from teh FAIR sight. Claims to state teh polyanderous marriages were non-sexual. Makes some good points stretches credibility some at some others.
For what it’s worth, he was sealed to a woman who was 47 years old (Patty Bartlett), one who was 50 (Elizabeth Davis), one who was 58 (Rhoda Richards), and other older women. What Bushman wrote in Rough Stone Rolling has been useful for me:
Quote:Within fifteen months of marrying Louisa Beaman, Joseph had married eleven other women. Eight of the eleven were married to other men. All told, ten of Joseph’s plural wives were married to other men. All of them went on living with their first husbands after marrying the Prophet…In most cases, the husband knew of the plural marriage and approved. The practice seems inexplicable today. Why would a husband consent? The only answer seems to be the explanation Joseph gave when he asked a woman for her consent: they and their families would benefit spiritually from a close tie to the Prophet. Joseph told a prospective wife that submitting to plural marriage would “ensure your eternal salvation exaltation and that of your father’s household. & all your kindred.”…
There is no certain evidence that Joseph had sexual relations with any of the wives who were married to other men.They married because Joseph’s kingdom grew with the size of his family, and those bonded to that family would be exalted with him.
As I wrote before, one thing I realized is Joseph did not really marry women who already had a husband – not in the traditional sense, at least. When people are married, they live together, sleep together, and generally share their lives.I say they were notmarriages; they were sealings. It seems a common concern is that Joseph employed manipulation and/or coercion to obtain wives. I would say that persuasion was used at times. Even though a proposal was sometimes presented as a commandment, it was always left to the woman to obtain a witness for herself.
Shawn…14 years old is not a woman…and telling her it will save her family in the eternities is pretty manipulative and doctrinally unsound…unless prophets having calling an election made sure somehow translates to everyone in his family johnh wrote:Shawn…14 years old is not a woman…and telling her it will save her family in the eternities is pretty manipulative and doctrinally unsound…unless prophets having calling an election made sure somehow translates to everyone in his family
Helen Kimball’s dad was obviously convinced that it was going to work too, given he was the one who counselled her to do it.
I have various problems with some of this, but I also try very hard not to judge or condemn people who are operating within their own faith according to the dictates of their own consciences – especially when my understanding of those different paradigms is purely intellectual while my reactions to them are largely emotional. I don’t judge the girl or her dad…I am stating it was not an inspired thing for JS to do…if it was then a completely different doctrine sprang forth from what he intended or wrote about. To me this is a case of the man overpowering the spirit. By JS own teaching we are punished for our own sins. One person can not save another or there is no need for a saviour. If JS did this (seems irrefutable at this point) then either he fell to the natural man, or the doctrine has changed substantially which pretty much invalidates most of Christendom as well as the concept of free agency….at least in my book.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.