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:

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."

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?