"Eternity Only" Sealings

[Guest]

Brian Hales has published an article in Mormon Interpreter, in which he reaffirms his claim that 11 of Joseph's 14 polyandrous marriages were "eternity only" sealings.

"Contrary to the assertions of several authors, “eternity only” sealings were performed in Nauvoo. That is, a woman like Ruth Vose Sayers, whose husband was a non-member, was allowed to be sealed to another man for eternity only, with no marriage on earth. Sayers was sealed to Joseph Smith for “eternity only” as documented in Andrew Jenson’s handwriting in his notes found in the Church History Library."
http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/stretc ... #more-3644

After reading through all of the evidence Brian presents in Volume 1 of his trilogy, I'm convinced that the women were only aware of two types of marriages:[1]
1. marriages "for time"
2. marriages "for time and eternity"
Brian admits in his book that the phrase "eternity only" appears nowhere in any historical document. His case seems to rest on a handful of accounts in which, for brevity, the marriages were referred to as "for eternity" rather than "for time and eternity." It is clear however, that the Nauvooans used these terms interchangably.[2] in my opinion, in every instance wherein the polyandrous wives refer to their marriage to Joseph as "for eternity", the preferred reading is "for [time and] eternity" as opposed to "for eternity [only]."

Regarding Ruth Vose Sayers, Andrew Jensen states that she "became numbered among the prophet's plural wives." This is spoken as if the marriage immediately took effect; i.e., he does not say "...future plural wives" or "...eternity-only wives." The Earthly validity of Ruth's marriage to Joseph logically necessitates Jensen's subsequent "though/however" explanation about her living arrangements. If the marriage had not immediately taken effect then Jensen's explanation would have more logically been preceded by a "thus", "hence" or "therefore".[3]

Concerning John W. Wight's questioning of Zina D. Huntington in 1898 (Vol. 1. p. 429-430), he tries to coax her into saying that her marriage to Joseph was not active or valid in this life.
John Wight: "It is a fact then Mrs. Young, that Joseph was not married to you only in the sense of being sealed for eternity?"
But she replies with crystal clarity.
Zina Huntington: "As his wife for time and eternity."
Wight then gives her two choices.
John Wight: "Mrs. Young, you have answered that question in two ways; for time, and for time and eternity."
She chooses the second option and avoids any ambiguity by eliminating the common word "time" from her response.
Zina Huntington: "I meant for eternity."
It's pretty clear that, to Zina, "for eternity" and "for time and eternity" meant the same thing, since she was only given two options and she didn't chose "time".

I see no justification for reading "for eternity" as "for eternity [only]" in any statement by any plural wife of Joseph Smith. "Eternity only" is, after all, an oxymoron; i.e., "eternity" includes "time" by definition. Furthermore, the women indignantly rejected suggestions that their marriages to Joseph were not fully valid.[4]

The church has never allowed "eternity only" sealings for living participants. To assert that Joseph Smith practiced such a thing in secret for 11 exceptional cases, then suddenly terminated the principle, is special pleading driven by apologetic necessity. The case for "eternity only" sealings rests on nothing more than a determined misreading of the sources.

----------------------------------------------

[1] On Oct. 3rd 1843, Charlotte Haven received an invitation to attend a wedding in the Nauvoo Mansion, over which the Prophet would officiate. She writes, "Of course I accepted, having curiosity to see the Mormon marriage ceremony,-though the groom was a Gentile,-for I had heard that in some cases the marriage is not only for time but for eternity." She then (apparently disappointed) notes that "Mr. B., a lawyer of Carthage, and Miss W., a niece of Sister Emma, were united for time only." (emphasis in typescript) Letter 10, Nauvoo, Oct. 15, 1843, Reprinted in Overland Monthly and Out West Magazine; Dec. 1890; Vol. XVI, No. 96.

[2] Mary Ann West, plural wife of William Smith recalled that, "He [Joseph Smith] said it was for time and eternity, and not until death, as we were generally married,-it was for eternity." Mary Ann West, Deposition, Temple Lot Transcript, Respondent's Testimony, Part 3, p. 504, questions 269-78.

[3] Ruth's case appears to be another "half of her love" situation; i.e., Eliza Jane Churchill Webb declared in a letter dated Aug. 27, 1876 that "William Law was another one of Joseph's confidential friends, and I heard him testify to the truth of Joseph's endeavoring to get Mrs. Law to leave her husband and be sealed to him. However, if she wished, she might still live with him, but she must give Joseph at least half of her love in time, and all in eternity. Law told this in a meeting and his wife said it was all true.” Myron H. Bond Papers, Community of Christ Archives.

[4] To RLDS Elder John Wight's question, "Then it is a fact, Mrs. Young, is it not, that you married Mr. Smith at the same time you were married to Mr. Jacobs?" Zina responds, "What right have you to ask such questions? I was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity." John W. Wight, "Evidence from Zina D. Huntington Young, October 1, 1898," 29.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Brian Hales has published an article in Mormon Interpreter, in which he reaffirms his claim that 11 of Joseph's 14 polyandrous marriages were "eternity only" sealings.

I'm not even halfway through the first volume, but even so, the term "eternity only" is, to my eyes, such a glaring contradiction in terms that I have to wonder why he wasn't able to come up with something better. He might as well have called them "temporarily non-permanent permanent sealings".

[_Joe Geisner]

Not really sure I can add anything of substance. But I am Irish; since I went to Ireland and visited relatives. I have a German last name, so I am "German" in "eternity only." Yea, that's the ticket. Makes lots of sense, correct?