Heber Chase Kimball

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Scottie
_Emeritus
Posts: 4166
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:54 pm

Post by _Scottie »

John, you are right. On second look, it appears the dates of these births appear very suspect.

Beastie, thanks for the additional birth during the Joseph Smith/Nauvoo polygamy era. Yes, indeed, why was HCK allowed to procreate, but Joseph Smith was not? Seems rather silly, doesn't it?

Bob, there are most certainly members out there who defend that all of Joseph Smith plural marriages were strictly platonic.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman

I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Scottie is correct - there are members who argue that all of Joseph Smith' marriages were nonsexual. You may dismiss them as being uninformed, but, nonetheless, they exist. Moreover, each time a believer points out the lack of proven offspring for Joseph Smith and his plural wives, this is the implied argument.

As for the polyandrous unions - I'm not familiar with any good evidence that indicates there were all viewed as "for eternity only". Additionally, some of the polyandrous wives themselves indicated the possibility that Joseph Smith fathered one of their children. (see Sylvia Sessons Lyons, for example: http://wivesofjosephsmith.org/DNA.htm )

Besides, even IF no sex were involved, these women AND their offspring were all going to "belong" to Joseph in the next life. That's pretty morally offensive in and of itself, in my opinion.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_John Larsen
_Emeritus
Posts: 1895
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:16 pm

Post by _John Larsen »

beastie wrote:Besides, even IF no sex were involved, these women AND their offspring were all going to "belong" to Joseph in the next life. That's pretty morally offensive in and of itself, in my opinion.

Exactly! This fact gets buried so often. With or without the sex, the actions by Joseph were deplorable based on what he thought he was doing.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

John Larsen wrote:
beastie wrote:Besides, even IF no sex were involved, these women AND their offspring were all going to "belong" to Joseph in the next life. That's pretty morally offensive in and of itself, in my opinion.

Exactly! This fact gets buried so often. With or without the sex, the actions by Joseph were deplorable based on what he thought he was doing.


Oh, he knew exactly what he was doing. And so did God. Remember? God will not allow a prophet to lead the church astray... and Joseph is the only prophet who died young of unnatural causes.
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

Post by _ludwigm »

MishMagnet wrote:
beastie wrote:
by the way, all the Kimball descendants have had their election and calling made sure via the bargain for Helen Marr Kimball.
God's into bartering!

This works out well for me.

Clarrisa Crissy Cutler, wife #43
Married to HCK Dec 29, 1845 at 21 years of age
My gr,gr,gr,grandmother.

He was 44, she was 21. A beautiful couple.

I should show this to my TBM wife. "Look, You may have became my 43th loved one."
Unfortunately, she doesn't look at and doesn't listen to this type of information. These are lies for her, by default.
Fortunately, she is the only of this type in our family environment.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

rcrockett wrote:I doubt any member knowledgeable in the area will deny the fact that Joseph Smith had connubial relationships with most of his wives. After all, the church and the Deseret News went to great lengths to prove this point in the 1800s during a legal dispute with the Reorganized Church. The real question is whether he had relations with wives who were married to other men. Of that, I am not convinced, and think that he and others understood the difference between time and eternity. Wilford Woodruff halted these dynastic marriages in 1894, I believe; probably more in reaction to negative perceptions in light of the amnesty provided the Church than anything else.


Bob, do you have any information on why Joseph Smith found it necessary to perform these dynastic marriages? This has always been confusing to me. There were some husbands and wives that he sealed to each other, and then there were other situations where the wives were sealed directly to Joseph. What was the distinction? I could understand him wanting to have the wives of non-members sealed to him as a possible means of guaranteeing the wives' salvation if the wives were believing members, but it is also documented that some of the polyandrous marriages Joseph was involved in were women whose husbands were upstanding Church leaders. Any links or information you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks.
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

Note to Bob---

I have created a new thread specifically on the topic of Joseph Smith's dynastic marriages in the Celestial Forum.

Feel free to answer my question directly on this thread:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... php?t=5186

Thanks!

:)

Liz
Post Reply