👧 Helen Mar Kimball¶
Estimated time to read: 16 minutes
I don't expect I'll delve into the details of each of Joseph's plural wives. I've looked into a few, and feel satisfied that what I've found is egregious enough that reading more isn't going to make things more palatable. If you're interested in the others, I'd direct you to a podcast called Year of Polygamy. I've got notes on Helen simply because of the notorious timeline, age gap, and documentation.
Mawwiage¶
Helen wasn't the first of Joseph's plural wives, but she does appear to be the youngest. Joseph was buddies with Heber C Kimball, and assured the family that if Helen gets sealed to Joseph, the whole family will be given exaltation and salvation. It isn't clear to me why Helen is the only one who could do this. Helen later laments that she never would have agreed to this if it was anything more than ceremony. On paper, though, this Sealing was purely ceremonial and did not mean a social contract like marriage, nor include sexual relations.
Age gap¶
Age of consent is broadly accepted as 18 in modern cultures of western nations, although laws explicitly state "a minor." In the 19th century, that law was a lot less clear, and not always enforced. What Joseph did here does not appear to be illegal by the metric of contemporary judisprudence and natural law; cultural norms shape laws where there isn't an explicitly stated case.
Before you accuse me of delving too deep into libertarian ideology, please keep your pitchforks where they belong; I'm making the case that despite law not preventing this, ethics should have. Someone speaking for and representing God must be held to a high standard. Joseph was already married. The Kimball family wouldn't have taken Joseph's word pertaining to salvation and exaltation if Joseph wasn't a prophet. This sounds to me like an abuse of power. Marrying someone 22 years younger than you is not commonplace, and I think the only reason Joseph got away with it is because he's in a position of power and influence.
For the sake of side-by-side comparison, here's a table of dates:
| Name | Date of Birth | Difference |
|---|---|---|
| Joseph Smith, Jr. | 23 December 1805 | - |
| Emma Hale | 10 July 1804 | ↗ 1 yr 5 mo 13 day |
| Alvin Smith | 15 June 1828 | ↘ 22 yr 5 mo 24 day |
| Heber Chase Kimball | 14 June 1801 | ↗ 4 yr 6 mo 10 day |
| Vilate Murray | 01 June 1806 | ↘ 6 mo 10 day |
| Helen Mar Kimball | 22 August 1828 | ↘ 22 yr 7 mo 30 day |
Alvin, Joseph's firstborn son, passed away in infancy. That must have been devastating to the family. I don't want to make light of that. What I do want to point out, though, is that Alvin was born 2 months and 7 days before Helen was.
That means that Joseph Smith, prophet of the Lord, married a girl younger than his own child. Had Alvin survived into at least teenage years, Helen's hypothetical stepson would be two months older than her. This is a very uncomfortable thought for me to process. Helen was nearly the same age as Joseph's own children.
Modern Comparison¶
Please don't look too far into this; I'm pointing out a parallel between the age similarity between Helen and Alvin with another church leader's firstborn and spouse. That's as far as I'm taking this observation.
| Name | Date of Birth | Difference |
|---|---|---|
| Russell Marion Nelson | 9 Sept 1924 | - |
| Dantzel White Nelson | 17 Feb 1926 | ↗ 1 yr 5 mo 13 day |
| Marsha Nelson Workman | 29 July 1948 (?) | ↘ 23 yr 10 mo 20 day |
| Wendy Watson Nelson | 31 May 1950 | ↘ 25 yr 8 mo 22 day |
By my understanding, Russell Nelson's first wife passed away in 2005, and he remarried in 2006. Nothing wrong with that. Nelson's firstborn daughter Marsha was born in or close to 1948; records haven't been super clear since she's still living. Nelson's second wife was born in 1950, which makes Wendy's stepdaughter 2 years and 2 months older than her. I think that's weird. If someone chooses to get married to an older partner, more power to them, I don't object to that. I don't think this is a case of legality or ethics, just... look, I'm not in this family, I can only look at these dates and point out a bizarre pattern in age differences. But wow, I imagine that I would get a real case of heebie-jeebies if my mother got remarried to someone so close to my own age. Looking at this hypothetical step-father at the same approximate age as me would feel super weird, and I would think less of my parent as a result. That's me.
Power¶
We could spend a lot of time bantering about whether a man had a boner 200 years ago or not. Extant records don't explicitly state. In the example of Helen Mar Kimball, one Lindsay Hansen Park describes how settling this disagreement isn't nearly as important as understanding the impact of what we can demonstrably prove:
[What matters here] is the power, not the situation. It's the person using you, manipulating you— that's what happened to Helen Mar, whether she slept with him or not. ... What I'm saying is that in this context, this is about power. So when we argue whether he did or didn't have sex with Helen Mar, I say it doesn't matter. He took her life away.
— Marrying underage girls was about power, Lindsay Hansen Park, Mormon Stories Podcast
Social consequence¶
Helen was a teenager, and had aspects of teenaged life taken away after she's been coerced into a state of marriage. That changes a woman's social dynamic. Think back to when you were a teenager, and imagine how being married at that age would have impacted things— simply socializing with friends is now completely different. In what ways does a 14-year-old girl interact with friends, compared to a 35-year-old woman interacting with friends? What if a teenager just gets pushed straight into the "age 35" category?
If Helen is "married" to Joseph, is she allowed do date or court other boys / men, or is Helen expected to behave socially like a married woman? Was her life changed by this social contract?
Let's assume there was no boinking involved, and it was simply being "sealed" and nothing more than that. This is still gross and weird. A 37-year-old man marrying a 14-year-old girl is problematic no matter how you cut it. Defending this marriage is problematic in its own right. Joseph was already married to Emma. If this was simply about salvation, why didn't Joseph do this for the entire family? The entire church congregation? The entire town? Why just one impressionable youth? And later, widows and other men's wives?
The fact is that he married her- and by that act he secured all rights and privileges to himself and thereby deprived her of any other possible social opportunities. If Joseph was going to wait until she was 18, or whatever the equivalent age of consent would be in the 1840's, he still took advantage of a child and put her in a position that she was unable to consent to.
A Woman's View¶
Joseph Smith, a close friend of the Kimballs, privately taught Heber and Vilate in 1841 about plural marriage, which he was commanded by revelation to introduce. In May or June of 1843, Heber introduced Helen to the idea of plural marriage and encouraged her to be sealed to Joseph Smith as a plural wife. She agreed to the sealing and later characterized it as being “for eternity alone,” suggesting that the relationship did not involve sexual relations. Helen considered the marriage a sacrifice that could eternally link the Kimball and Smith families in heavenly society.
— Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, Church History Topics
Alright, now... You can read the rest of this article if you think added context will make this somehow less awful. Maybe you can explain this me how marriage "for eternity alone" means there were no sexual relations. What the fuck does that even mean?
I don't know how else to ask this: why would Helen consider the marriage a sacrifice? That sure makes it sound like it wasn't a romantic, mutually beneficial agreement between two consenting parties. That makes me think it wasn't marriage as you and I think of it today. Maybe things have dramatically changed since 1843, and I'm just naive?
What I'm mainly interested in here is footnote 5 within that quoted paragraph. It shows numerous literary sources to back up the statement that Helen got married to Joseph because she was led to believe it would assure Helen's family's salvation. Of particular note is A Woman's View, which doesn't appear to be a biography, but a collection of Helen's written reminiscences and contributions to the Woman's Exponent magazine between 1880 and 1887. The link above is to BYU Religious Studies Center's publication of this book, as it appears to be out of print.
Appendix One¶
In Appendix One, we find the following:
Just previous to my father’s starting upon his last mission ... he taught me the principle of Celestial marriage, & having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet’s own mouth. My father had but one Ewe Lamb, but willingly laid her upon the alter: how cruel this seamed to the mother whose heartstrings were already stretched untill they were ready to snap asunder, for he had taken Sarah Noon to wife & she thought she had made sufficient sacrafise, but the Lord required more. I will pass over the temptations which I had during the twenty four hours after my father introduced to me this principle & asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph, who came next morning & with my parents I heard him teach & explain the principle of Celestial marrage- after which he said to me, “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation & that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.
This promise was so great that I will-ingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. None but God & his angels could see my mother’s bleeding heart—when Joseph asked her if she was willing, she replied “If Helen is willing I have nothing more to say.” She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older & who better understood the step they were taking, & to see her child, who had scarcely seen her fifteenth summer, following in the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was all hidden from me.
— Appendix One, A Woman's View, Helen Mar Kimball
I'll be real, I had to refrain from highlighting a lot more in that passage. Hooo boy. There's a lot to unpack here. I understand that 19th century views on women's rights are not the same as they are today, but god damn does this sound bleak.
This appendix leads me to believe that this reminiscence was written on 30 March 1881. The quote at the beginning of this section says the interaction took place in 1843, meaning this would be around 38 years after, making Helen around 53 years old. I suppose she's had lots of time to think about it all, and the vivid detail that seems to stick out the most in Helen's memory is the anguish of her mother at this exchange. Think of that. 38 years later, and she can still recollect such emotional pain seen in Vilate's eyes. Heber offered Helen to Joseph, having "but one Ewe lamb", and under the pretense that marrying Joseph will "ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation" for Helen and her family.
Poetry¶
Helen attaches this to her reminiscence in that same appendix:
I thought through this life my time will be my own
The step I now am taking’s for eternity alone,
No one need be the wiser, through time I shall be free,
And as the past hath been the future still will be.
To my guileless heart all free from worldly care
And full of blissful hopes—and youthful visions rare
The world seamed bright the thret’ning clouds were kept
From sight, and all looked fair but pitying angels wept.
They saw my youthful friends grow shy and cold.
And poisonous darts from sland’rous tongues were hurled,
Untutor’d heart in thy gen’rous sacrafise,
Thou dids’t not weigh the cost nor know the bitter price;
Thy happy dreems all o’er thou’rt doom’d alas to be
Bar’d out from social scenes by this thy destiny,
And o’er thy sad’nd mem’ries of sweet departed joys
Thy sicken’d heart will brood and imagine future woes,
And like a fetter’d bird with wild and longing heart,
Thou’lt dayly pine for freedom and murmor at thy lot;
But could’st thou see the future & view that glorious crown,
Awaiting you in Heaven you would not weep nor mourn,
Pure and exalted was thy father’s aim, he saw
A glory in obeying this high celestial law,
For to thousands who’ve died without the light
I will bring eternal joy & make thy crown more bright.
I’d been taught to receive the Prophet of God
And receive every word as the word of the Lord.
But had this not come through my dear father’s mouth,
I should ne’r have received it as God’s sacred truth.
Idk man I don't see this going over very well being taught at Sunday school. Tell me if a satisfied happy woman would look back on a marriage and write this about it? And the best defense we have is "it was just for eternity, that means no sex, therefore this is a non-issue 🤓" get the fuck out of here with that
Dancing¶
Ready for more sad reading? Good, cause we got more to get through.
During the winter of 1843, there were plenty of parties and balls. … Some of the young gentlemen got up a series of dancing parties, to be held at the Mansion once a week. … I had to stay at home, as my father had been warned by the Prophet to keep his daughter away from there, because of the blacklegs and certain ones of questionable character who attended there. His wife Emma had become the ruling spirit, and money had become her God. I did not betray William, but I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow [William] to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with others of my companions, and fetter me down, for no girl loved dancing better than I did, and I really felt that it was too much to bear. It made the dull school still more dull, and like a wild bird I longed for the freedom that was denied me; and thought myself a much abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur. I imagined that my happiness was all over, and brooded over the sad memories of sweet departed joys and all manner of future woes[.]
— Scenes and Incidents in Nauvoo, A Woman's View, Helen Mar Kimball
Other pages within this book describe her affinity for dancing and socializing. She's a teenager in the 18th century, not like there was much else to look forward to, but that makes this that much worse— her one escape, one joy in life is taken away.
Regrets¶
The Twelve took Joseph's wives after his death. Kimball and Young took most of them; the daughter of Kimball was one of Joseph's wives. I heard her say to her mother, "I will never be sealed to my Father, (meaning as a wife) and I would never have been sealed (married) to Joseph, had I known it was any thing more than ceremony. I was young, and they deceived me, by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it. I say again, I will never be sealed to my Father; no, I will sooner be damned and go to hell, if I must. Neither will I be sealed to Brigham Young." The Apostles said they only took Joseph's wives to raise up children, carry them through to the next world, there deliver them up to him, by so doing they should gain his approbation, &c.
— Narrative of Some of the Proceedings of the Mormons, Catherine Lewis, 1848
I'll acknowledge that practicing Mormons won't like this source, as they like to discount anything said by someone who has been excommunicated from the church; evidently that makes an individual lose all credibility and negates any of their experiences. I'll concede also that I haven't read this full book. Again, perhaps you could point to the context that makes this less egregious, because it sure sounds to me like Brigham and Heber were among the apostles to divvy up Joseph's wives, and...
hol up now
Helen is asserting in no uncertain terms that she refuses to be sealed as a plural wife to her own father Heber, with the understanding that it's to "raise up children" what the fuck Heber. Heber. Sit down. I am deadass right now I need someone to get in the comments and tell me I'm misinterpreting this, cause it sure sounds like Heber wants to take his own daughter as a plural wife to raise up children. "By doing so they should gain his approbation?" Whose, Josephs? I can't think of anyone's approbation that makes this okay. I can't.
If this celestial marriage was just ceremonial, why would Helen lament that it was "any thing more than ceremony?" What exactly were these things that were more than a ceremony? If Joseph's plural wives were not for raising up seed, why would the surviving apostles have that as their explicitly stated goal in taking Joseph's surviving wives after his passing? Did these women need to be sealed again in order for Joseph's initial plan of bringing them exaltation to work? That wouldn't make sense, and makes me think that Joseph's polygamy wasn't quite so innocuous and philanthropic.
As a proponent¶
Defenders of the faith will (rightfully) point out that Helen did come around, speaking in favor of polygamy, advocating for it in her later years. At face value, they're not wrong. Appendix Two of A Woman's View describes exactly that.
I am not qualified to diagnose anything, but could this be a case of something like Stockholm syndrome? Did she convince herself that it was all well and fine in the interest of her own psyche and emotional wellbeing? I can't say for certain. I can observe that she had a tough transition into it, and later seemed to calm down.
More Links¶
- Kimball, Helen Mar; Church Historians Press
- Helen Mar Kimball Whitney; Church History