Many times, when studying the problematic events of early Church history, it is difficult to relate to any of the events of the time. Former Mormons invariably attempt to come up with parables and allegories, trying to convey to others the problems that they see in the interactions that have been recorded between Joseph Smith and the early saints. I have been trying to find some way to communicate the problems I see with the way in which Joseph Smith proposed to Helen Mar Kimball, the 14 year old daughter of Heber C Kimball.
I came across a video today which is perfect. Take a look at the following clip – particularly the sequence between 00:47 and 1:32 when the host speaks to the young girl Alison (make sure to watch the rest of the clip as well):
In this sequence you see a game show host who is interviewing young girls as part of a gameshow. In each interview he asks the young girl for a kiss. The children are seated with their parents and he brazenly asks them this question, and even forces kisses from girls who initially refuse. With the one girl Alison, he is rebuffed in his request for a kiss and he then asks the girl to reconsider if he was to promise her that she would win the game show if she gives him the kiss. She continues to refuse and you can hear her mother in the background exclaim “Dirty old man!”
Chances are that you felt very uncomfortable watching the specter of a mature grown man make highly inappropriate advances to young girls who have yet to complete puberty – all for just a kiss. This visceral reaction that you have to such a scenario is the same reaction that you would have if the leader of a religious cult such as David Koresh of the Branch Davidians made similar overtures or worse. That reaction is your conscience telling you that it is absolutely wrong.
A Mormon Parallel
This above interaction in particular has a close parallel in Mormon History. I have written previously about how Joseph Smith requested the hand of 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball in marriage, and her initial reluctance was overcome after Joseph Smith promised her that by consenting to the marriage she would win eternal salvation for herself and her family. (see Indulgences – Restored?)
This video clip may give you a sense of what it would be like to witness Joseph Smith’s proposal to Helen Mar Kimball. Lets examine the parallels between that exchange and this game-show host based on Helen Kimball’s own account:
[table]
Gameshow, Early Church
Gameshow Host: “you look like a young lady who likes to give lots of hugs and kisses out. Do you?”, Joseph Smith: “you look like a young lady who would like to be sealed to me for eternity as a plural wife – would you?”
Alison:“Not really”, Helen Mar Kimball: “Not really”
Gameshow Host: “Even if I say and whisper in your ear that you’re going to win the show?”, Joseph Smith: “Even if I promise you that it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation & that of your father’s household & all of your kindred?”
Alison: “Nuh-uh”, Helen Mar Kimball: “This promise is so great that I willingly give myself to purchase so glorious a reward.”
Alison’s mom: “Dirty old man!”, Vilate Kimball: “If Helen is willing I have nothing more to say.”
[/table]
Apples and Oranges
No doubt many people will object and say that these comparisons are not legitimate. What is worse- asking for a kiss or asking for consent in marriage and all that this potentially implies? What is worse – promising victory in a game show or promising guaranteed exaltation for the victim and their whole family? What is worse – sitting by while a man kisses your daughter or sitting by while a man takes her to his home and possibly bed?
It is correct that these are not the same. One of them should foster much more outrage and contempt for the abuser of authority.
An Imposition of Authority
The gameshow host is in a position of authority. He is the one who will determine if the girl contestants and their mothers will win big bucks. As such, there is pressure on the parents to not speak up when they see the host exceed appropriate boundaries. You can see it again and again in the clip above. The host asks inappropriate questions and forces himself on the children while the parents sit to the side in silence. They really want the money, and if they offend the host they will lose their chance. So they sit quietly. To object to the host’s advances is to risk being cast out of the gameshow and losing all chance of a prize.
If a random old dude came up to a child in the park and made the same request – you can bet the parents of the child would violently protest. I applaud the mother who called him out as a dirty old man – but she apparently stopped short of standing up and walking out with her child. This would be the sane thing to do.
The religious parallel is that the members of the early church really wanted God’s approbation and to receive all of the glorious blessings which Joseph Smith taught that God was offering. People had to have not only the approval and favor of God – but also had to have the good favor of Joseph Smith himself. If they fell out of favor of the Prophet – he had the power to excommunicate them and cut them off from the saints and God’s blessings. They too had strong incentive to sit silently by and let the man in authority exceed proper boundaries. To object to Joseph’s advances was to risk being cast out of God’s fold and losing all chance at exaltation.
The One True Scotsman & Circular Logic
Many Mormons invoke an inverse of the “No True Scotsman” sort of argument in defense of Joseph Smith. We may call this the “One True Scotsman” argument. That is that while it may be wrong for someone else to do something, it is alright for another person because they have an exclusive special status. No matter how egregious the issue is, the standards are always shifted to allow for the one true scotsman to be justified. Apply that argument to this comparison: believing mormons are likely to exclaim that while it is highly improper for this gameshow host to make the advances he does, it is not improper for Joseph Smith to make his proposals because he has a special Authority and Calling as a Prophet of God. In this way Mormons can say that certain behaviors are bad when other religious leaders commit them, but they are just fine when Joseph Smith or other LDS Church leaders commit them.
The question is – who told the people that Joseph Smith had a special calling and authority? Joseph Smith did. Who told members that they can trust the special feeling they get when they ask God to confirm something they already really want to believe is true? Joseph Smith did. Since the source of Mormons’ belief in the Authority of Joseph Smith came from Joseph Smith himself, you can’t use his authority or the feelings taught as the “holy ghost” to over-ride evidence of his deception. If he was a deceiver in the matter of Helen Mar Kimball, then he is also likely to have been a deceiver in claiming authority and in explaining the reliability of feelings described as “the spirit” to confirm truth. (see this covered in more detail here).
To use Smith’s authority, or feelings of the spirit, to prove Smith’s divine calling against evidence of his perfidy is to engage in circular logic.
To illustrate, imagine that the parents objected to the Game Show Hosts actions and he responded by saying that he had been given special permission from God and the police to kiss underage girls. If the parents accepted that argument and allowed him to continue, they also also using circular logic and are in the same position as people who excuse Joseph Smith’s actions. He too said that he had God’s permission to do that which society and propriety had long condemned.
Authority Enables Abuse
You can also bet that the host understands that he is able to be more forward with the kids because of his status. By having this authority he was empowered to take liberties with his position. Because of his position the gameshow host could offer sums of money and the glory of winning – or withhold those blessings at his whim. The Prophet can offer great heavenly treasures and the assurance of the glory of God’s favor – or withhold those blessings at his whim.
As arbiter of these rewards, these men in authority can exert their will upon their eager supplicants with a freedom that no one else enjoys.
Who are we to judge?
I have had many discussions with believing Mormons, about this difficult chapter in Mormon history which reveals something of the nature of the propositions which Joseph Smith made to potential ‘celestial’ or plural wives. Some propositions came with promises of exaltation as we see in the case of Helen Mar Kimball, others came with threats that Joseph Himself would be slain by an angel with a flaming sword (see here). The canonized scriptures themselves promised Emma Smith, Joseph’s first wife, that she would be destroyed if she did not accept Joseph’s polygamy (See D&C 132:54).
A common defense I receive when I bring up these issues is that I shouldn’t judge Joseph because we don’t have all the information. We have been told not to judge one another and so for us to judge Joseph in such a way, without all the facts, is un-Christlike.
Okay.
If that is true, then I would ask you – would you be willing to let this gameshow host babysit your kids? Why not? Would his actions in this clip at least raise enough red flags that you might consider there to be a real risk of leaving your children in his power? You must then be judging him. Why can you judge this gameshow host without all the information, but not Joseph Smith? Isn’t your eternal soul and that of your children at least as valuable as the well being of your children? Why then would you turn a blind eye to Joseph’s actions – but not to those of this gameshow host?
Conclusion
The bottom line is that there is no explanation which could justify the abuse of power that is revealed in Joseph Smith’s proposition to Helen Mar Kimball – just as there is no justification for the actions of the Gameshow host. No additional piece of information could justify the host’s actions or Joseph Smith’s. In both cases, men in authority used their position to cross appropriate boundaries and those looking on had pressure to remain silent and perpetuate the abuse.
In life we are obligated to make judgements about the actions and statements of people in order to protect our selves and navigate the opportunities and pitfalls of life. By holding a blind spot for those who are in authority, we leave ourselves and our loved ones open to abuse and in doing so may find ourselves in a position to spread that abuse to others.
Ask yourself – how can the “proper authority” be proper if the proposition is not?
You know, I’m glad you have a place where you can work this out.
The fact is that, if you believe in a ‘next life’, much of this *we* will not know about until then. It is not probable, but possible, that *we* don’t know everything that happened.
I find polygamy in all its aspects, historically and currently, abhorrent. Repugnant. And I had LDS (active, believe it or not) who fought it in the 1800s, even before Young’s death.
I read this. I have read it before. I know that the official stance of the church is that it was, somehow, sacred, which I find laughable.
My problem, however, is that the truth really isn’t known. Yes, we have Helen’s relation, from how many years later? Perhaps she was telling the truth, completely and totally; perhaps it was a horrible thing that happened, and Joseph Smith is a scurvy son of a ___________. Could be. Not saying that it’s impossible.
However, there were no children. DNA tests continue to show that even some women (with good reputations) who claimed/declared that one of their children was fathered by Joseph Smith (while the woman was married to others)–
simply didn’t have children with him at all. Why would they claim that? And then when DNA testing became a viable option for proving, the children gladly (by then great, great, great grandchildren, more than like) allowed themselves to be tested, and they were not found to be descended from Joseph Smith.
Who are you going to believe?
I remain somewhat neutral. Until it can be proven that he fathered children with them (obviously he was able to do that; Emma was pregnant many times)–
I simply can’t believe the sources, especially those who claimed, when it could never be proven, that they had children with him, only to have it disproven one hundred years later.
I have come to realize that some of us want to believe Joseph Smith wasn’t a scoundrel, even if he made stupid mistakes.
And some of us want to believe he was.
So, based upon that belief–
You go ahead and believe he was a scoundrel, a knave, a crazed man, debached, etc.–
And just say it. You don’t have to prove anything. Just say what you believe. Because, the fact is, there is no proof without the pudding.
And the pudding is children. And there are no firsthand accounts other than those which have been disproved by DNA testing–
or someone like Kimball (Helen Mar) who was heartbroken over it, but apparently didn’t get pregnant by the man, if there were s#xual relations.
The fact is that what’s his name–
the FLDS leader–but I can’t remember his name at the moment–
IS alive right now, and he has fathered many children from various wives.
So, go ahead and judge Joseph Smith; I get your point. But he’s been dead since 1844.
He’s not going to babysit anyone’s children, and, frankly, if you are naive enough to let any man babysit your children (and many women as well), then you are just naive.
Don’t do it. By all means, if you are a parent, teach your children to distrust people. I don’t like that bishops talk to my daughters alone, and they know that, and they have to report to me; they don’t have to; they want to.
Teach your children. Arm them. Heber C. Kimball was a doofus. A first rate one. His wife was foolish to let her daughter do that, if she did–
especially if there was more than a sealing.
I happen to believe that, even if Joseph Smith didn’t have s#x with teenagers, he crossed some lines in other ways–
but I also believe he had a mission and performed it. He should have stopped there.
Brian Hales, the guy who wrote the book on Joseph Smith’s polygamy, collecting every shred of available evidence, believes that Joseph Smith had children of other women.
http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/JSPSexuality/MASTERJSPSexuality.html
The church itself admits that Joseph could have justifiably had sex with anyone that he was married to – from 14 years old on up.
“William Clayton provides the best contemporaneous evidence that at least some plural marriages in Nauvoo during Joseph Smith’s lifetime involved conjugal relations—just as they did later in Utah—and nothing in the 12 July 1843 revelation on plural marriage provides any doctrinal reason for why any authorized plural marriage could not have included such relations.” (http://josephsmithpapers.org/doc/introduction-to-journals-volume-2)
If you accept the idea that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, then you are accepting that it was approved of God for him to have carnal sexual relations with a 14 year old girl who only agreed to marry him after he promised eternal exaltation to her whole family.
That is not me stomping on Joseph Smith – that is the reality that is painful to hear if you want to maintain a rosy colored view of Church History. It also means that by continuing to adhere to Mormonism, you are willingly subjecting yourself to a God who approves and condones such things.
Why didn’t Joseph Smith have more kids with his numerous wives? Well, people asked the same question of John C Bennett. He admittedly had relations with numerous women under his ‘spiritual wife’ rationale. Where are the kids from those relations? Well John C Bennett was a physician who was capable and equipped to induce abortions. When Bennett was being condemned by the Church after his break with them, the church members accused him of being an abortionist. It was easy to make this accusation because at this time the members of the Church did not know that Joseph Smith had multiple wives.
The problem is that Bennett could have made his services available to Joseph’s wives as well. Sarah Pratt agreed with the Church leaders that accused Bennett of being an abortionist – stating that Bennett even showed her some of his instruments for the purpose. Since the leaders of the church initially added credibility to the carge that Bennett was an abortionist to hide his own offspring – once Joseph Smith was outed as having plural wives, you cannot escape the possibility that Bennett assisted Joseph in a similar fashion.
It’s not conclusive. It is possible, however. In the end it doesn’t matter. whether or not there were kids or was actually sex is irrelevant. the issue that members have to confront is that there could have been and the church today claims that God would have been okay with that.
I know about Hales’ opinions and research. I also know about Bennett’s being an abortionist.
I don’t agree with the present claim that God would have been “okay” with any of this–
I am pleased that you are aware that nothing can be proven.
That is my point.
I do believe Joseph Smith went beyond some bounds. Was it with regards to polygamy, etc.? That, I don’t believe, anyone can know.
Joseph Smith went waaaay out of bounds – which was why he was arrested and run out of town so many times. A guy who routinely propositioned other men’s wives and his friend’s teenage children was just as disgusting in the 1800s as it is today.
“None of this can be proven” is incorrect – unless you are saying that multiple victims, witnesses, and friends of Smith (including former prophets) were all liars. Convenient that everyone around Smith MUST be a liar in order to fit your personal opinion, marginalizedmormon.
I love your comment here, Thinker, especially the conclusion in the final sentence. Perhaps it warrants another article on the topic or revision of this article to more explicitly include what you state here.
So, according to marginalizedmormon Helen Mar Kimball was a liar? A 14 year old girl persuaded to wed and bed with a man more than twice her age was a liar? That’s generally called “victim blaming”. And, I’ve seen a whole lot of Mormons do it over the years.
@Church of the Fridge
Thanks for the name. Warren Jeffs.
Huh. Brigham Young practiced and practiced and practiced polygamy, and he never spent time in jail. Darn those parallels!!!
Moron.your reaction is culturally imbued. There were many women if that day who married at 14 and thought nothing of it.
Did those 14-year-old women who were married usually marry men more than twice their age? Answer: no.
BTW, censuses at the time show that 14-years-old was still a very young age to marry.
Before you call people morons you should know your information.
melvinwalker is correct, census data shows that the few 14 year old girls who got married in that time period were generally marrying close to their age. But, good job trying to explain away sexually predatory behavior!
The research here is confusing, at least for me.
Rock, on the PureMormonism website has an alternate view that Emma was really telling the truth. According to that research, all of the later claims about polygamous relations with Joseph were made to buttress the leadership of the Utah church who were actually living in polygamy. According to this theory, BY and others actually imported polygamy while on missions to the North East, where they encountered a group that believed in the practice. They practiced polygamy in secret and Joseph was not a party to it. After Joseph’s death they faked section 132 and invoked Joseph’s name to put a stamp of legitimacy on the practice. Later, when the temple lot case became important, they encouraged perjury and got all of the statements from the women saying they had been Joseph’s wife.
It’s a lot to swallow, but it does have features that I like. Joseph was consistent in publicly denouncing polygamy, but if he was a secret polygamist, then he was a practiced liar as well. If, however, it was BY & co. who were responsible for all the lies, then possibly Joseph and Emma were telling the truth (at least about polygamy).
BY certainly acted in a similar fashion to Warren Jeffs in the way he manipulated people once he arrived in Utah. He ended up a very wealthy man and sometimes acquired property by sending men on missions, allowing him to get the property on the cheap. Those who claimed a marriage to Joseph, were in positions of great power and authority in Utah. These positions could only be maintained if they continued to support BY’s claims, so they had strong motive to embellish the truth. My understanding is that there are very few contemporary records about Joseph engaging in polygamy that were recorded while in Nauvoo, almost all of it is from diaries written 10 or more years after the fact while in Utah.
So, it’s a narrative that I prefer over the Church’s supported narrative that Joseph was a liar, a secret polygamist, that he married kids and that he married other men’s wives (while they were living). It is essentially the same narrative that the Reorganized Church held for many years. However, eventually even the Reorganized Church felt that the weight of historical evidence was against Joseph and this narrative. When they caved on the polygamy issue, they essentially became very soft on Joseph as a prophet, the Book of Mormon, etc. Today, they hardly acknowledge their origins, even changing their name to the Community of Christ.
But, as others have pointed out, we don’t have all the facts. We probably never will. Those who believe Joseph was a scoundrel have plenty of evidence. Those who believe he was a prophet also have their evidence. I doubt the historical record will change anyone’s opinions.
I bet you feel stupid now, huh?
https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng