Joseph Smith's Manipulation of a Teenage Girl

[Apologette]

Helen Mar Kimball was one of Joseph Smith's youngest "plural wives." I've recently had some Mormon tell me that he may have married her, but golly gee, they never had marital relations.

First of all, D&C 132 states that plural marriages are to raise up seed unto the Lord, not for platonic relationships. If Smith married for any other reason than to produce offspring, he was violating his own "revelation." Second, Helen Mar Kimball, herself, indicated that had she known that her marriage to Smith was anything more than a sealing ceremony, she never would have gone through with it:

"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." (Helen Mar Kimball, "Mormon Polygamy: A History by LDS member Richard S. Van Wagoner, p. 53.)

Now consider the fact that Helen opines that "the salvation of our whole family" depended on her accepting Smith's proposal. How manipulative is that? Is that the kind of outlandish pressure you put on a young teenager? Her father, Heber, was just as much of a pervert as Joseph Smith - trading his daughter for Smith's sexual pleasure that he could rule as a god in the Celestial Kingdom in the hereafter. What kind of monster does that to his own daughter? How many Mormons here would do that? (Oh, that's right, I've never had a Mormon say they wouldn't!).

Here's poor Helen's story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhY1NXBL8l0

My question is, don't Mormons actually think through the acts of their first "prophet?" Don't they realize that he was a power-hungry, lust-hungry, cult leader - just like others who have done similar things?

[Novato]

Apolo whatever,

May I ask, why is it that you place a 4th party account of the sacred sealing (not marriage) of the Lord’s Prophet Joseph to this elect lady.

Why not post her actual autobiography, which is her actual words, which is available here:

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/HWhitney.html
This is free and covers the period Apolo whatever relates the deception.

http://www.amazon.com/Widows-Tale-18.../dp/0874215579

Unfortunately you have to pay for this one, however it is outside the period mentioned.

Could you please advise why you chose a third party account against the actual account of the person you are attacking.

Novato

[Apologette]

Apolo whatever,

May I ask, why is it that you place a 4th party account of the sacred sealing (not marriage) of the Lord’s Prophet Joseph to this elect lady.

Why not post her actual autobiography, which is her actual words, which is available here:

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/HWhitney.html
This is free and covers the period Apolo whatever relates the deception.

http://www.amazon.com/Widows-Tale-18.../dp/0874215579

Unfortunately you have to pay for this one, however it is outside the period mentioned.

Could you please advise why you chose a third party account against the actual account of the person you are attacking.

Novato

So, you believe it was fine and dandy for Smith to promise the Kimballs exaltation if their 14 year old daughter was married to him (behind Emma's back, I might add). And that's no fourth-hand account. Typical Mormon reply. I have never seen a Mormon who would criticize Smith, never.

[James Banta]

So, you believe it was fine and dandy for Smith to promise the Kimballs exaltation if their 14 year old daughter was married to him (behind Emma's back, I might add). And that's no fourth-hand account. Typical Mormon reply. I have never seen a Mormon who would criticize Smith, never.

It would appear that the rules Smith made up about polygamy didn't extend to himself.. The 132nd section of the D&C gives a woman a change to accept a second wife for her husband before he could forget how she feels and do it anyway.. The passage reads:

D&C 132:65
Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

So a leader of the LDS church violates the teaching of the Bible that the leaders of the Church must be the husband of ONE wife. If the wife scripturally objects she becomes the sinner and the man is free to involve himself in polygamy without her consent.. Smith, in the bit of LDS history under discussion, didn't even bother to allow Emma to object.. He hide the whole nasty perversion entering into it time and again behind her back breaking the law he said he received from God.. Wasn't this a lie of omission? Isn't that just as much a lie as saying something false? Again I insist that Joseph Smith was a nasty horrible liar.. IHS jim

[Pa Pa]

Helen Mar Kimball was one of Joseph Smith's youngest "plural wives." I've recently had some Mormon tell me that he may have married her, but golly gee, they never had marital relations.

First of all, D&C 132 states that plural marriages are to raise up seed unto the Lord, not for platonic relationships. If Smith married for any other reason than to produce offspring, he was violating his own "revelation." Second, Helen Mar Kimball, herself, indicated that had she known that her marriage to Smith was anything more than a sealing ceremony, she never would have gone through with it:

"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." (Helen Mar Kimball, "Mormon Polygamy: A History by LDS member Richard S. Van Wagoner, p. 53.)

Now consider the fact that Helen opines that "the salvation of our whole family" depended on her accepting Smith's proposal. How manipulative is that? Is that the kind of outlandish pressure you put on a young teenager? Her father, Heber, was just as much of a pervert as Joseph Smith - trading his daughter for Smith's sexual pleasure that he could rule as a god in the Celestial Kingdom in the hereafter. What kind of monster does that to his own daughter? How many Mormons here would do that? (Oh, that's right, I've never had a Mormon say they wouldn't!).

Here's poor Helen's story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhY1NXBL8l0

My question is, don't Mormons actually think through the acts of their first "prophet?" Don't they realize that he was a power-hungry, lust-hungry, cult leader - just like others who have done similar things?

Broken record?

[Sir]

Broken record?

PaPa,
That's why you'll notice most of the LDS simply ignore it.

[jdjhere]

Novato said: "sacred sealing (not marriage) of the Lord’s Prophet Joseph to this elect lady."

For what reason was this 14 year old "elect little girl" sealed to Joseph?

[John T]

Novato said: "sacred sealing (not marriage) of the Lord’s Prophet Joseph to this elect lady."

For what reason was this 14 year old "elect little girl" sealed to Joseph?

ANSWER:
Sex, silly!

It is amazing that NONE of the LDS respondents can offer up ONE bit of contradictory evidence to what is said by the EXACTLY quoted words of Helen. Therefore they are admitting that the account is true.

Instead, they are presenting derisive dismissing and disdainful attacks on the history in order to obfuscate the painful truth of their god-to-become, the pseudo prophet JS.

In doing so, they are demonstrating a defacto acceptance of simple pedophilia. Secondly by their failure to condemn it, the Mormon posters are actually making a statement of endorsement for pedophilia. That is because an absence of condemnation is many times assumed to be an act of tacit approval. (Thar was the argument of Thomas Moore, also. A historical reference.).

But to me, the saddest thing about their morally reprehensible position regarding what Smith did did to Helen, and his serial adulteries is that they go to absurd lengths to defend the indefensible acts of JS and completely loose sight of the fact that Smith was an utter degenerate reprobate, who preyed on women, and subjected them to be sex slaves. He also stole the wives of other men.

In other words, the early Mormons were swingers,and today's Mormons wrap that history in a pious blanket of obfuscation, hoping that the world will be dazzled by their bovine (fill in the blank).

All this is because Scripture calls the Mormons (and other cults) "spiritually blind". (2 Corinthians 4:4) It should be no wonder to Christians why the early Mormons were so justifiably called despicable. They were akin to having a pseudo-religious sex cult moving into a home in your neighborhood.

Yes, it is amazing that their spiritual blindness makes them oblivious to the truth of their own history. More amazing is that the fact when Christians (and they are not) like Apologette exposes their past evils, they will attack either the message itself-- as is seen in previous posts in this thread by the LDS "mopologists" or else they will attack the messengers of the truth.

And when they refuse to acknowledge historical truths, then they are promulgating historical lies, by definition. That position is as morally bankrupt as it is sick, sick, sick.

[RealFakeHair]

ANSWER:
Sex, silly!

It is amazing that NONE of the LDS respondents can offer up ONE bit of contradictory evidence to what is said by the EXACTLY quoted words of Helen. Therefore they are admitting that the account is true.

Instead, they are presenting derisive dismissing and disdainful attacks on the history in order to obfuscate the painful truth of their god-to-become, the pseudo prophet JS.

In doing so, they are demonstrating a defacto acceptance of simple pedophilia. Secondly by their failure to condemn it, the Mormon posters are actually making a statement of endorsement for pedophilia. That is because an absence of condemnation is many times assumed to be an act of tacit approval. (Thar was the argument of Thomas Moore, also. A historical reference.).

But to me, the saddest thing about their morally reprehensible position regarding what Smith did did to Helen, and his serial adulteries is that they go to absurd lengths to defend the indefensible acts of JS and completely loose sight of the fact that Smith was an utter degenerate reprobate, who preyed on women, and subjected them to be sex slaves. He also stole the wives of other men.

In other words, the early Mormons were swingers,and today's Mormons wrap that history in a pious blanket of obfuscation, hoping that the world will be dazzled by their bovine (fill in the blank).

All this is because Scripture calls the Mormons (and other cults) "spiritually blind". (2 Corinthians 4:4) It should be no wonder to Christians why the early Mormons were so justifiably called despicable. They were akin to having a pseudo-religious sex cult moving into a home in your neighborhood.

Yes, it is amazing that their spiritual blindness makes them oblivious to the truth of their own history. More amazing is that the fact when Christians (and they are not) like Apologette exposes their past evils, they will attack either the message itself-- as is seen in previous posts in this thread by the LDS "mopologists" or else they will attack the messengers of the truth.

And when they refuse to acknowledge historical truths, then they are promulgating historical lies, by definition. That position is as morally bankrupt as it is sick, sick, sick.

One day, who knows when, but we gotta hope the president of the LDS church, the guy in charge will stand up in conference and say. "It's all true, Joseph Smith jr, was a sex addict, Brigham Young was racist, and was responsible for the Montain Meadow Massacre, and oh by the way the Book of Mormon is a fairytale. Now can we finally move on!"

[jdjhere]

Hey John T. It appears the LDS are gone for awhile. I have not seen anything posted by them for quite awhile now. Thanks for the answer but I was actually wanting an LDS poster to answer that question to see what they say and I still welcome what their opinion is. Maybe a little history of why women are sealed to men in the first place for a better understanding for the readers here? I would like to know in their own words why a 14 year old girl would be sealed to Joseph Smith and what happens after that... Where are they now and what are they doing according to LDS beliefs? Thanks.

[John T]

Hey John T. It appears the LDS are gone for awhile. I have not seen anything posted by them for quite awhile now. Thanks for the answer but I was actually wanting an LDS poster to answer that question to see what they say and I still welcome what their opinion is. Maybe a little history of why women are sealed to men in the first place for a better understanding for the readers here? I would like to know in their own words why a 14 year old girl would be sealed to Joseph Smith and what happens after that... Where are they now and what are they doing according to LDS beliefs? Thanks.

Obviously, they are afraid of the facts.

[jdjhere]

Well, for whatever reason they are not posting anymore. Oh well. I am sure they will pop back in soon full of vigor and ready to roll.

[jdjhere]

Novato said: "sacred sealing (not marriage) of the Lord’s Prophet Joseph to this elect lady."

jdjhere asked: "For what reason was this 14 year old "elect little girl" sealed to Joseph?"

Maybe a little history of why women are sealed to men in the first place for a better understanding for the readers here? I would like to know in the LDS's own words why a 14 year old girl would be sealed to Joseph Smith and what happens after that... Where are they now and what are they doing according to LDS beliefs? Thanks.

????