Keskustelu:Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Marriages to young women

Helen Mar

• A friend pointed out some flaws in logic involving Helen Mar Kimball (see http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sanemormon&msg=2605.8 ). His flow of logic makes sense to me. However, since accepting what he says would pretty much mean changing that entire section, I wanted to run it by others first. Thoughts? TanyaSpackman 21:21, 7 Aug 2006 (MDT)

• • Hmmmm...Firefox won't direct me past that URL to the web page. Can you post the pertinent material here (or at least recap it)? --MikeParker 22:16, 9 Aug 2006 (MDT)

• Sorry about that. Here it is. It's from Scott Quantz.

---

There are a couple of issues.

1. FAIR uses Todd Compton to support a theory that there was no sexual relations between HMK and Joseph Smith because there is no evidence there were any. Compton suggests that the marriage was purely dynastic and FAIR assumes that position in the first part of the treatment.

While I think there are some inherent problems with that theory which I will explain, the second part of the defense is a list of prominent men of the era that also married teenagers but they don't suggest thise marriages were purely dynastic.

So they are defending the notion that Joseph and Helen didn't have sex and then saying that it would have been socially acceptable if they had.

Pick on side of the coin and stay with it. If there was nothing unacceptable with Joseph and Helen having sexual relations within marriage, then why spend time trying to prove they didn't? If it wasn't acceptable then why justify its propriety by listing others who did marry young women and did have sex with them.

If it was wrong, then those men should be condemned while Joseph applauded for not having sex with HMK.

Then FAIR uses the HMK journal to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any. Several of Joseph's wives wrote journals, including Emma. Only one, and it wasn't Emma's, states that she was Joseph's wife "in every way", possibly alluding to sexual intimacy. Clearly Emma was sexually involved with Joseph so her not mentioning it in her journal means nothing more than the fact that women of that era didn't talk about sex in the journals. Unlike modern women, these women were writing journals to inform and inspire their children; not to tittilate them.

My theory involves several pieces of evidence found in the journal. Upon hearing that her father wanted to marry her to Joseph, HMK was livid. She was not only very young, she was also in love with someone else.

Joseph was, no doubt, aware of this. It would make sense that he would not press any issues with sexual intimacy until such time as she was ready. Then, well, then he was murdered.

Joseph was keenly aware of the Lord's feelings concerning sexual relations within marriage.

"And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

Therefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; and that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made." (D&C 49:15-17)

The design of even dynastic marriages is to ensure a place for children.

I believe that, had he lived, Joseph and HMK would have eventually enjoyed a rich and meaningful marriage, including the joy of sexual intimacy.

---

TanyaSpackman 08:09, 10 Aug 2006 (MDT)

I defer

• Excellent. This is why I asked before I changed anything, as this is a topic I know little about. Thanks for the response Suzanne. Would you object if I sent your response to Scott via email (just so he knows his comments were considered), or would you rather I didn't? TanyaSpackman 08:35, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

Here we go...

With reference to the following issue: "My theory involves several pieces of evidence found in the journal. Upon hearing that her father wanted to marry her to Joseph, HMK was livid. She was not only very young, she was also in love with someone else."

1. Helen Mar Kimball was livid but not for the reason you think. I suggest you look up the original source without Compton's ellipses.
2. What is your reference for Helen Mar being in love with someone else?
3. I also think that the relationship would have involved sexual relations at a later date but I do not believe that it was a connubial relationship right from the start although in Nauvoo young women were encouraged to marry as young as 14-years-old and young men as young as 17-years-old.
4. I hope to add to the Helen Mar Wiki as soon as I finish the project I'm on right now with should be in a couple of weeks. Doesn't that page indicate that the page is under construction/review or something? (There, I went and added "needs work" in brackets.)

--Suzanne A. 18:22, 17 Aug 2006 (MDT)

• Just to clarify, Suzanne, the comments above were not written by Tanya, they were written by Scott Quantz and posted at the forum URL Tanya provided, above. Since Scott is not a wiki editor, there is no one to answer your questions. What we could do is add rebuttles to Scott's claims into the wiki article.

Also, be sure to sign your posts using the signature button on the toolbar. --MikeParker 20:12, 17 Aug 2006 (MDT)

• Thank you Mike. Here are my thoughts (I just can't resist commenting when it involves Helen Mar Whitney).

1. I re-read Scott Quantz' points and have concluded that (just as I myself did right here) he is reading things that just aren't there. (My mixup with Tanya/Quantz.) FAIR is NOT using the HMK journal to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any. Does anyone re-reading the bit about Helen Mar get that impression? That the HMK journal excerpt is to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any?

2. Quantz' theory, "involving several pieces of evidence found in the journal", does NOT support his theory.

Helen Mar Kimball explains in her writings why she "was livid" (Quantz' words). I've been working on an article on Helen Mar for over a year and I was going to post an excerpt here explaining why she "was livid" but I changed my mind. Helen herself said that she received her father's teachings on plural marriage "meekly" (her word). Suffice it to say that, and this is no secret I've said it before, Compton (or Compton's editors) did some pretty sloppy work when he wrote that chapter on Helen Mar Kimball.

I am presently writing an introduction to a "Mormon Women's Protest" and I include a couple of examples there of Compton's shoddy work/writing. It has nothing to do with what we are discussing here, I'm just posting it as one example (of many) of why I feel that Compton does sloppy work:

>>>>>>

Full reports of these meetings were often published in the Woman’s Exponent and the Deseret News but, as noted earlier, historical sources are usually reduced to a sentence or two, a duly footnoted quotation, or ignored altogether. For example:

1) In his book In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith author Todd Compton’s chapter on Helen Mar Whitney never mentions the March 6th mass meeting.

2) Compton is also the author of a lengthy introduction to A Widow’s Tale: The 1884–1896 Diary of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney. In his introduction, Compton reduces Helen’s many diary entries about the mass meeting to one sentence:

"She attended a pro-polygamy mass meeting of women on March 6, 1886, and was asked to speak but declined."

Although Compton is technically correct, Helen did refuse “to make a verbal speach” she did agree to provide a written speech to be read at the mass meeting. This was not unusual at that time as women were unaccustomed to public speaking in front of a very large audience such as this one. But that wasn’t Helen’s only contribution. We read in her diary that a week before the mass meeting, on February 27, 1886, Helen met with Isabella Horne to help organize it:

"...to talk over the subject of having a Mass meeting to protest against the outrages committed upon “Mormon” women, and insults heeped upon them in district courts etc who are the subjects of abuse from United States officials & their sneaks thieves, etc, and taking from the women the right of franchise, that they may more easily accomplish their robbing scheme. I was one of those appointed to write a speach."

Isabella Horne was president of the Relief Society of the Salt Lake Stake; Helen Mar Whitney was her counselor.(10) Notice of the meeting was published in the Deseret News and “Mrs. H.M. Whitney” is listed just below Isabella Horne’s name. Helen also noted in her diary that she spent several days prior to the mass meeting composing her speech. In the end, due to time constraints, Helen’s speech was not read aloud but it was published in “Mormon” Women’s Protest. On March 9th, she writes: “Spent going over my speach, adding to it, as it was cut down to suit the Mass meeting. I have gained by not having it read there.” Two days later, she handed in her “improved copy.”

(fn 10) Augusta Joyce Crocheron. Representative Women of Deseret. (Salt Lake City: J.C. Graham & Co., 1884.) 115. Todd Compton was incorrect when he wrote, “On March 10, 1882, Helen was chosen by Sister M. I. Horne as second counselor in the Relief Society of the Eighteenth Ward.” (In Sacred Loneliness, 520).

>>>>>>

Quantz also says that Helen Mar was "also in love with someone else." This is untrue (I'll be re-reading my sources but I'm pretty confident that this is false.) Again, he is reading into the text something that is just not there. If I remember correctly Compton says something like (and I'm paraphrasing) 'Helen was a teenager when she fell in love with Horace' and readers might interpret that as Helen was in love with Horace Whitney before her marriage to Joseph Smith... it says right there in Compton's book that she was a teenager when she fell in love with him. BUT Helen was still a teenager when she became a widow. So, Helen was a teenager when she fell in love with Horace.

People tend to get all emotional when they read Compton's bits and pieces in his book and imagine a 14-year-old Helen Mar writing these things in her diary. Compton never mentions that Helen was 53-years-old when she sat down to write her reminiscences. That wouldn't have the same pull on one's heartstrings as letting the readers think that they are reading the words of a poor, benighted 14-year-old would it?

3. I agree with Quantz that "had he lived, Joseph and HMK would have eventually enjoyed a rich and meaningful marriage, including the joy of sexual intimacy." And although Compton doesn't come out and say it, it is inferred in his example (and included in our FAIR blurb) "following later practice in Utah." The example he refers to being that of an older man, marrying a young woman, and not having sexual relations with her right away... you know, until she was older.

In the end it is my opinion that it was left up to the woman whether the marriage would involve sexual relations. Some older wives chose not to. Of Brigham Young's 55(?) wives only 16 were connubial. This doesn't mean that they weren't "raising up seed." These sister-wives were called aunts by the children and helped in the rearing of children. These were just unorthodox extended families. I do know that Emmeline B. Wells is the one who asked Daniel H. Wells to marry her. Why? To help her raise her children. Why not? He was a bishop, well-to-do, etc ...anyways, that's for another topic.

--SuzanneArmitage 03:21, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

Sexual fixation

I think the following sentence makes a very important point:

Critics who assume that everything "is all about sex" reveal more about themselves than they do about the minds of early Church members.

However, I think the tone of this comment is rather smug. I tried to improve this sentence a few times myself, but didn't like what I came up with. I think the best approach would be to find some scholarly article that addresses differences in attitudes toward the sexual nature of relationships in the 20th century vs. 19th century America. I'll look for some and report back if I find anything.... --RobertCouch 08:55, 5 Jul 2006 (MDT)

Yes, this does need to be toned down. Take a look now — what do you think of my edit? --MikeParker 11:10, 5 Jul 2006 (MDT)

• Smug? MOI?  :) Okay, it did sound that way. But I didn't mean it. Honest. Mike's edit is much better anyway, and is what I meant. Greg Smith 13:17, 7 Jul 2006 (MDT)