DiscussMormonism.com

My wife and I had one of our fruitless discussions about the church yesterday. A topic that typically comes up during one of these sessions is her apparent apathy towards actually learning about her church. Specifically, its history and its relationship to the world as we now know it. I just don’t understand her approach.

During this discussion I brought up the case of Joseph Smith marrying Helen Kimball when she was 14. She was skeptical of any such information since she had never heard of in church, seminary, from a bishop, in general conference… etc. She challenged me (conceding that the marriage may have actually occurred) on whether or not they actually consummated the marriage.

It then occurred to me, and I expressed this sentiment to my wife, that the matter of actual consummation was a moot point. The fact of the matter is/was, that D&C 132 would have permitted him to. So, as I see it, if god is the true source of D&C 132, then he is the type of god I want nothing to do with. If Joseph was the true source of D&C 132, he was a con man of the lowest order. So… who would you rather indict? Joseph or god.

So what about this? Is the actuality of the consummation of the marriage between Joseph and Helen a moot point considering that either his god, or his ego, gave him license to do so?

I agree but I would add.. until the late 1800s when polygamy ended.. the fact that these guys were having sex with the many wives is never in question. Its understood that sex - reproduction is to be a part of plural marriage. So why then should Joseph Smith marriages have been any different?

Not to mention that other former spiritual wives of Joseph Smith did admit to having had sex with him. So even if Helen Mar Kimball and Joseph Smith didn't get naked with each other, Joseph Smith still did it with many other women, so what's the point of this question?

The fact is, a marriage is assumed to be consummated. Otherwise, it's not a marriage.

True. Can you imagine a woman saying "I never would have married him if I knew he wanted to have sex with me." I don't think even a polygamous bride would be that dumb.

"Mad Viking"]My wife and I had one of our fruitless discussions about the church yesterday.

I like you MV, I read your posts on RFM too.
Dig this, we all (male, female) have our differences with our spouses.
In my case it is not about the cult, I am her business partner, we fight fiercely. Somehow we compromise (however grudgingly) get on with life.
Nothing is etched on "right" & "wrong".

If she feels like on solid ground all the time, you are in trouble because from what I read of you, you are a sensible, reasonable guy.
Don't waste your life.

What was the legal marrying age back in those days? Was 14 and odd age to get married back then? didn't the parents agree to the marriage as well, as in he went to the Father and asked permission to ask her to marry him?

And if they were married, and the bride was given away, then where is the impropriety?

D&C 132 doesn't leave much room for a platonic relationship! Verses 62-63: And if he [Joseph Smith] have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.... for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

Then there is Helen's comment to a friend:
Cut and paste from Mormonthink.com: "Helen Kimball thought her marriage to Joseph Smith was only dynastic. But to her surprise, it was more. Helen confided 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." (Mormon Polygamy: A History by LDS member Richard S. Van Wagoner, p. 53.)"


The marriage is recorded in familysearch.org as well.

Using familysearch.org you can confirm Helen's age and follow other leads such as Zina Huntington - where her marriage to Joseph Smith is after her marriage to Henry and before their second child was born.

Hours of fun!

Gazelam wrote:What was the legal marrying age back in those days? Was 14 and odd age to get married back then? didn't the parents agree to the marriage as well, as in he went to the Father and asked permission to ask her to marry him?

And if they were married, and the bride was given away, then where is the impropriety?

Hey stupid! Ya wanna try and pay attention? We are not debating the "marrying age". Had Joe married ONE wife at the age of 14 nobody would give a s***. Hugh Nibler married his wife when she was barely 17 and he was 34. Perv in my book but big f*****g whooop. He only married one.

Pay attention. Joe MARRIED teen girls other men's wives, and even old hags, behind his wife's back, lied to the public and his followers, and acted above the laws of the land(1833 Illinois anti bigamy law). PERIOD.

UNDERSTAND?

For the rest of you pukes, just like the good harmony pointed out, if these were not traditional marriages and just fun little sealings, then why did his close associates(some of which were ex'd), leaders then and now, refer to them as MARRIAGES.

Joe was a lying, wife cheating, money swindling cult leader of the likes of Rulon and Warren Jeffs, David Koresh, and Jim Jones.

So what about this? Is the actuality of the consummation of the marriage between Joseph and Helen a moot point considering that either his god, or his ego, gave him license to do so?

Well, it might be except Helen was not sealed to Joseph Smith until after his death and at the same time married to Horace Whitney for time only. Horace Whitney was also then sealed for eternity to Elizabeth Sykes (deceased).

So this first "marriage" to Joseph Smith does not seem to be of the D&C 132 variety.

However, if it were, it doesn't bother me in the least.