Questions About Polyandry

[Calm]

Here is a site that pulls from different sources; if 90 % is true then they still get an A.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

I looked up all their Helen Mar Kimball quotes I could find awhile back. I believe I posted the total context and compared them in some thread around here. (here is the thread: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...p;hl=helen+mar) I felt that they left out some crucial information to make it look as bad as possible.

So if the rest of the collection follows HMK's material, I would give them maybe a 50% at best and that on the less 'shocking' quotes. IMO, they therefore deserve a D.

[karl61]

I looked up all their Helen Mar Kimball quotes awhile back. I believe I posted the total context and compared them in some thread around here. (here is the thread: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...p;hl=helen+mar) I felt that they left out some crucial information to make it look as bad as possible.

So if the rest of the collection follows HMK's material, I would give them maybe a 50% at best and that on the less 'shocking' quotes. IMO, they therefore deserve a D.

The whole thing shocks the conscience when taken as a whole. Like I said before those who practice polygamy today live a gold standard compared to how it was practiced back then. Joseph constantly told people to keep it a secret or it would destroy him. Telling women that they were his in the pre existence, telling them that an angle threatened him, well did the angel give him a number, two or three - how many, telling people that once you become a member of the church your marriage is null and void just like any bapitism without the property authority would be null and void. Some would see this as a compulsion. Isn't it interesting that after he had no place to go and he was going to be called on his actions D & C 132 suddenly came to be and apparently he was practicing it wrong since he didn't have emma's approval. And when OLIVER COWDERY called him on it oliver was charged with many things, not following revelations, and even thinking that Joseph Smith was in an adultress affair.

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. –Blaise Pascal

Without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion. -Stephen Weinberg

[Dale]

from page 13: in sacred lonliness:

When Angus Cannon, a Salt Lake City stake president, visited Joseph Smith III in 1905, RLDS president asked rehtorically if these were his father's wives, then "how was it that there was no issue from them" Cannon replied:

All I knew what that which Lucy Walker herself contends. They were o nervous and lived in such contant fear that they could not cocieve. He mad light of my reply. He said, " I am informed that Eliza Snow was a virgin at the time of her death. " I in turn said, "brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked her the question if she was a virgin although married to Joseph and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, "I thought you knew Joseph Smith Beter than that."

"Melissa Lott Willes testified that she had been Smith's wife "in very deed" "Emily Partridge Young said she "roomed" with Joseph the night her marriage to him, and she she had "carnal intercourse" with him.

"Other witnesses also affirmed this. Benjamin Johson wrote: "on the 15th May...the Prophet again Came at my Hosue {house} occupied the Same Room & Bed with my Sister that the month previous he had ocupied with the Daughter of the Later Bishop Patridge as his wife"

it appears to be a faith promoting rumor that he was only sexually involved with Emma.

What were those women supposed to do admit they lied as to the nature their relationship with Joseph Smith? Perhap's they claimed sexuality years later to impress others. So when Eliza Snow was relationship with Joseph Smith was questioned from the standpoint her relationship with Joseph smith was platonic she had to cover herself. Being a plural wife of Joseph Smith would have given certain women celebrity status among Mormon people. But even if they told the truth a few scattered claim's of sexuality is hardly many? It does not invalidate the possibility some of these sealings involved only platonic relations with Joseph Smith. Todd Comptom has homself concluded that in the cases involving Helen Mar Kimball and Patty Sessions.

Angus Cannon may have made up hearing a sermon of Brigham Young. In the sermon he referred to a report of a certain child of Joseph Smith born through a plural wife. I doubt myself Brigham Young referred to any such report. Brigham Young I think died in 1877 and it's uncertain as to the authenticity of the memory of an old sermon that I don't know Brigham Young ever gave. To me Angus made up the story of hearing the sermon to try and impress Joseph Smith 3rd.

With Benjamin Johnson Todd Comptom estimates the sealing with Almira happened between April 2-22, 1843. What he did not notice was possible perjury in the very same testimony of him and his sister. They both claimed Hyrum Smith told them the new polygamy doctrine was ok, and for Almira to go ahead and be married to Joseph Smith. That's a problem as Hyrum Smith's conversion to a belief in polygamy from an anti-polygamy stance couldn't have been before late May of 1843. A study of William Clayton's Nauvoo Diary confirms the conflict between Todd Comptom's date conclusions, Benjamin's testimony, and the detail about Hyrum Smith. They have to get to Nauvoo on a certain date in time for her sealing to Joseph Smith. Todd Comtom's research on his estimated date is way to solid to try and replace with another date.

The April date for the sealing is the only date he has to work with. Him and his sister only had a certain date to travel to Nauvoo. And then they have to travel back to where they lived. Plus only certain dates for Joseph Smith traveling to the Johnson home exists to try and get them into polygamy.

Were it not for documents dating to Nauvoo implicating Joseph smith in polygamy I don't see anything in the above testimony I would trust. Though it's alway's possible for things like journals to be edited in second copies, or have later interlopationbs added to a journal. No evidence such happened with William Clayton's Nauvoo journal. Though I I am open to some of the above type of testimony being true based on such documents. The document back's up Lucy Walker's testimony.

[Oracle]

I don't get this at all - for many reasons.

Is there any evidence that the husband's objected to these sealings?

What do you know about the relationships between JS and his wives that had more than one husband?

You don't see the problem with polyandry?! What did Joseph say when Zina voiced objections saying "but I have a good husband who I love already, why would a marriage to you be needed?"

Do you not see that Joseph was peddling an exaltation product with his marriages? He had to have, at some point, told these wives of good husbands that the sealing to him was more powerful..perhaps had a broader expansion range (you are saved, your children are saved, your children's children are saved, etc, etc). At some point he made himself MORE POWERFUL than the current marriage sealing. He backed up his more powerful assertions with stories of angels with flaming swords. To top it off, he also sealed their children to him! So Henry has his wife and his children rightly sealed to him stripped from his eternal right to be with them because Joseph the prophet deemed his sealing had more meat to it than the regular sealings. And Joseph did much of this stuff without informing his wife.

And he was so coercive in his methods that he had the other husbands standing in on these ceremonies when he was sealed to their wives? Amazing. They should have looked at the fine print on their baptismal certificate where it stated they needed to leave their gonads at the door.

Who gains exaltation like that? And if it is so easy that a simple sealing can counteract the effects of agency (good or bad) why do we not seal people to the prophet today? It was polygamy that was done away with, not sealings, after all.

If a man can have more than one wife, what is the difficulty with a woman having more than husband?

But they can't. Not in the afterlife. It looks like the alpha male prophet wins out.

[Deborah]

And he was so coercive in his methods that he had the other husbands standing in on these ceremonies when he was sealed to their wives?

Really, and you know how this all went down because you were there and witnessed all the events that were taking place?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion. -Stephen Weinberg

I'd say for good people to do evil things it takes life.

I'd like you, karl, do explain what Weinberg thinks religion is? Can you yourself define "religion" and why it makes good people do evil things?

[MJNSW]

I'm not prepared to get into a debate about whether Brother Joseph physically consummated any/some/all of his "marriages" to these women. I will say, though, that I think you are confusing the terms "marriage" and "sealing." Today, the two words are often used interchangeably in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I don't think that has always been the case. Today, sealings are confined to relatives, but that wasn't always the case. What are we to make of the fact that men were also sealed to Joseph, as well? D. Michael Quinn posits a whole non-heterosexual love-nest dynamic going on ... personally, I think he's not only superimposing 21st-century sensibilities onto a 19th-century setting, I think he was smoking something when he wrote that, but ... to each his own.

Not that my observations should count for anything in your little world, but ...

I think your argument is silly especially considering that BY obviously was not just SEALED to ZINA! Also, there is nothing that says that JS was JUST sealed to the women. Either way the point is mute. Why does it matter whether or not he was JUST sealed or consummated the marriages to the women? The fact that he became sealed to the other women when they were married and living with righteous men (that they should have been sealed to instead of JS) is a sad ordeal. As far as men being Sealed to JS... that is like a parent child sealing. Why could the women not have been sealed in that aspect to JS and also Sealed to their rightful Husbands as spouses for eternity?

Interesting and frustrating in my opinion!

[Oracle]

I think your argument is silly especially considering that BY obviously was not just SEALED to ZINA! Also, there is nothing that says that JS was JUST sealed to the women. Either way the point is mute. Why does it matter whether or not he was JUST sealed or consummated the marriages to the women? The fact that he became sealed to the other women when they were married and living with righteous men (that they should have been sealed to instead of JS) is a sad ordeal. As far as men being Sealed to JS... that is like a parent child sealing. Why could the women not have been sealed in that aspect to JS and also Sealed to their rightful Husbands as spouses for eternity?

Interesting and frustrating in my opinion!

These women refer to Joseph as their husband and their relationship as marriage in their journals. Someone should have informed them that those eternal marriage ceremonies were really just sealings. Platonic sealings, like a child to a parent.

"I was sealed to the Prophet, Joseph Smith, for time and eternity, in accordance with the Celestial Law of Marriage which God has revealed." She also describes her original reaction to and eventual acceptance of plural marriage.

"Eliza R. Snow's 'Sketch of My Life': Reminiscences of One of Joseph Smith's Plural Wives [1885]," BYU Studies 12, no. 1 (1971): 125â??30.

__________________________

"I wish to bear my testimony to the principle of celestial marriage, that it is true ......I became [Joseph's] wife at this time in Nauvoo and I never in my life had a rebellious thought against that principle, for which I thank the Lord." (Zina Huntington Jacobs Smith Young, Collected Discourses, vol. 5, Joseph F. Smith, December 23, 1894)

__________________________

The Utah Church historian, Andrew Jensen provides the date of the marriage to Joseph on December 11, 1841. Prescindia's brother performed the ceremony. In 1846 Prescindia left Norman and later married Heber C. Kimball. (No Man Knows My History, Fawn Brodie, pg. 462, "anti").

Oh, and you might want to inform the LDS church as well as they have these women listed as spouses under familysearch.org.

[Dale]

Being a plural wife of Joseph Smith gave some of these women celebrity status. So of course they are going to treat themselves as Joseph's wives in things like journals. Some of these women like Mary Lightner never claim to have been unfaithful to her husband Adam Lightner. I have read her statements and she never state's she was unfaithful to her husband. D.&C. 132 prevents polyandry as it's prevents the stealing of women vowed to other men. It would not pre-clude agreements to or associations for worlds to come though. Time and for eternity wording was thrown into the ceremonies for effect, but the women continued to live with the regular husbands.

Todd Comptom knows Patty Session's and Helen Mar Kimball regarded themselves as Joseph's wives. But he has expressed his opinion no sexuality was present in those marriages. He speculated as Helen go older it might have been included. Kerry Shirt's Mormonism Researched website has a section dealing with Mormonism Shadow or Reality? He has a link to a three page document by Todd Comptom chastizing the Tanner's for abusing his polygamy research.

Certainly a child born to Joseph Smith via a plural wife on the polyandry list would convince me Joseph Smith stole other men's wives. The one reputed child suggested to have been Joseph Smith's was Sylvia Session's daughter Josephine. But until DNA research back's up the claim she was not Joseph Smith's daughter. Her mother Sylvia may have regarded her as Joseph's by virtue of the sealing, and her daughter on her death bed may have been confused by her mother. Heber J. Grant by virtue of a platonic sealing had been called a son of the prophet Joseph Smith. But his mother had only been sealed to Joseph Smith after he was dead. I figure Sylvia may have meant daughter of the prophet Joseph Smith in a similar sense.

With Henry and Brigham Young they never had lived with the same wife at the same time. Zina appears to have seperated from Henry at the time she married Brigham. In all Joseph Smith's polyandrous sealings the regular man and wife continued to live together. Mary Lightner and Adam were told to continue to live together based on Joseph's instructions. To me if the wife doesn't claim sexuality it may not have been present at all. They may have claimed everything else as to regarding themselves as Joseph's wives, but nothing so far as confessing to anything improper.

I would like to see the basis for alleging Joseph Smith had improper relation's with married women. Everything I know upon which to base such speculation is either slander, or questionable.

[MJNSW]

These women refer to Joseph as their husband and their relationship as marriage in their journals. Someone should have informed them that those eternal marriage ceremonies were really just sealings. Platonic sealings, like a child to a parent.

Oh, and you might want to inform the LDS church as well as they have these women listed as spouses under familysearch.org.

Have you stopped and thought about the fact that they were meant to be listed as spouses and those women were under the understanding that they were sealed as spouses and most likely enjoyed the blessings of spouses too! After all, if JS was not intending for them to be sealed as spouses then tell my why the heck did BY and several others practice sealings and blessings of marriage with the multiple women they were sealed to?

Oh... and do you have an answer for Zinah Diantha Huntington Smith Young (I am missing a name in there somewhere...)?

[Dale]

I am not sure this is related to your concern, but William Clayton was sealed to Margaret Moon, and the same woman was also sealed to Heber C. Kimball. It's been awhile since I looked at my copy of William Clayton's Nauvoo Journal. But this was a type of polyandry that went along with sealing. William alone claimed a relationship with her. So I get from his journal that the sealing to Heber was a platonic one meant

for eternity.

I think the example regarding Margaret Moon and Heber C. Kimball is typical of Joseph Smith's polyandrous sealings. I know of no valid basis based on any quote relating to the 11 on the polyandrous list that lead's me to believe Joseph Smith had improper relations with other men's wives. I hate to indict Joseph Smith of bad behavior based on him could have being guilty of something bad.

[Jan]

You don't see the problem with polyandry?!

That is correct; I don't see or have a problem with polyandry.

[MJNSW]

That is correct; I don't see or have a problem with polyandry.

That is sad in my opinion...

[Jan]

That is sad in my opinion...

Why is it sad that I have that opinion?

Do we allow these women to speak for themselves? Or do we paternally and condescendingly try to speak for them?

[MJNSW]

Why is it sad that I have that opinion?

Do we allow these women to speak for themselves? Or do we paternally and condescendingly try to speak for them?

Because polyandry just as polygamy... in my opinion, is hurtful to the spouse that is forced or subjected to the plural aspect. The one that is forced to share their spouse with others of their sex. That is just unfair and mean.

[Dale]

I am not sure Joseph Smith's polyandry was genuine polyandry. I think of them as being closer to a pretend marriages as in a movie, or play. I just came to believe after the person's went through the ceremony they went home to be with the regular and spouse. I don't see any uquestionable basis for believing any of the 11 went on a honey-moon trip with Joseph smith. Without a consumnation of the marriage is it a real case of polyandry in the usual sense of a polyandrous marriage?

Joseph Smith appears to have rejected most polyandry outside of platonic forms of polyandry. Then he appears to have believed only after the existing marriage was dissolved by death could the new marriage go into effect. He does not believe in polyandry in the afterlife.

[MJNSW]

I am not sure Joseph Smith's polyandry was genuine polyandry. I think of them as being closer to a pretend marriages as in a movie, or play. I just came to believe after the person's went through the ceremony they went home to be with the regular and spouse. I don't see any uquestionable basis for believing any of the 11 went on a honey-moon trip with Joseph smith. Without a consumnation of the marriage is it a real case of polyandry in the usual sense of a polyandrous marriage?

Joseph Smith appears to have rejected most polyandry outside of platonic forms of polyandry. Then he appears to have believed only after the existing marriage was dissolved by death could the new marriage go into effect. He does not believe in polyandry in the afterlife.

Even so... I don't understand the need to be sealed to someone else's spouse. It may just be me, but why could he not just be sealed to them as children instead of spouses? That way they could have been sealed to their earthly spouse for eternity. Marriage is so sacred that that point alone is difficult for me to understand.

[Deborah]

Because polyandry just as polygamy... in my opinion, is hurtful to the spouse that is forced or subjected to the plural aspect. The one that is forced to share their spouse with others of their sex. That is just unfair and mean.

But that is your opinion. Those who were willing to do this may not have had the same opinion. Plus you are putting 21st century sensibilities and self-righteousness on a past generation. I think one of the problems is the thinking that somehow sex is for satisfaction of lust only when throughout history it's primary purpose was procreation, and that is assuming any of these marriages were actually consummated.

[Zakuska]

What makes Joseph's sealing to women sex driven and his sealings to men... I just can't figure that out.

[Dale]

The whole purpose of a platonic polyandrous sealing was to be enabled to adopt other men's kids as yours. Orson Hyde was uncomfortable with his daughters being Joseph's so simply had his wife sealed to him for time and for eternity. He had difficulty with the polyandrous sealing, but he knew the reasons behind it. I understand why they did it, but am still not myself totally ok with it. I suppose if I believed in the eternal marriage/ plural marriage revelation I would come to accept Jpseph Smith's polyandry as being ok with God.

I am Community of Christ/RLDS and we don't accept D.&C. 132 as inspired. In recent years the sections of the D.&C. regarding the building of the Nauvoo Temple, Baptism for the Dead were de-canonized from our scriptures. Our Doctrine and Covenants never had D.&C. 132 in it.

[MJNSW]

But that is your opinion. Those who were willing to do this may not have had the same opinion. Plus you are putting 21st century sensibilities and self-righteousness on a past generation. I think one of the problems is the thinking that somehow sex is for satisfaction of lust only when throughout history it's primary purpose was procreation, and that is assuming any of these marriages were actually consummated.

I am not talking just sex here. The emotional trauma of having to share your spouse or give them up to another in the next life just does not seem right or fair in any way.

Why could it not be a child parent sealing and not a spousal sealing? That has yet to be answered.

[Dale]

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." (Isa. 55:8 ) What's unfair to us might be the way God wants things done.

[Calm]

I am not talking just sex here. The emotional trauma of having to share your spouse or give them up to another in the next life just does not seem right or fair in any way.

Why could it not be a child parent sealing and not an spousal sealing? That has yet to be answered.

There will be no time or energy restrictions in the next life, thus our spouses can be with us for an infinite time whether they are only one individual or multiple ones.

There will be no jealousy, no competition, no low self-esteem, no doubt.

There will be full and total communication between individuals so that each knows exactly how the other feels about them.

People will have the capacity for infinite love.

In that circumstances how is sharing that love with more than one person unfair, especially if people want to share the experience.

My husband is a wonderful man. I feel completely confident that he is fully in love with me. I also believe that if I were to die, he would be capable of finding another love with another woman. If he can do it serially, I see no reason why he couldn't do it at the same time---he is the same person with the same capabilities after all. His being able to love another woman will, in my belief and trust, in no way decrease his love for me. The only restriction is one of time and energy--and thus may limit the ability to fully express that love in all ways as previously done--and depending on the person and their individual needs, it just may be asking too much to include someone else in the relationship. OTOH, I have read journals where women have expressed the opinion that their husband has grown in the ability to love them when they've been willing to fully accept a sister-wife or more into the family as well as having the opinion that they've grown themselves closer to the type of pure charity/love that God would like us all to experience.

Just because you personally can't imagine feeling this way doesn't mean that other women and men aren't capable of expanding themselves in this way, especially in the next life when we are dealing with infinites. Let people make decisions for themselves, imo. They know their own limitations better than anyone else in most cases.

[Jan]

Because polyandry just as polygamy... in my opinion, is hurtful to the spouse that is forced or subjected to the plural aspect. The one that is forced to share their spouse with others of their sex. That is just unfair and mean.

The women were not forced. And they were granted easy divorces by Brigham Young if they didn't like it. Have you read, by chance, More Wives than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System, 1840-1910 by Kathryn M Daynes?

Why isn't that we don't allow these women to chose for themselves?

[Jan]

What did Joseph say when Zina voiced objections saying "but I have a good husband who I love already, why would a marriage to you be needed?"

Why did Zina turn him down the first three times he asked (some prior to her marriage to Jacobs)?

Do you not see that Joseph was peddling an exaltation product with his marriages?

I don't view it that way.

He had to have, at some point, told these wives of good husbands that the sealing to him was more powerful..perhaps had a broader expansion range (you are saved, your children are saved, your children's children are saved, etc, etc).

He "had to have..told" them this? And you know this how?

At some point he made himself MORE POWERFUL than the current marriage sealing.

Well, yes, we do look at sealings and eternal marriages differently.

He backed up his more powerful assertions with stories of angels with flaming swords.

Yes, and Zina was unpersuaded by this argument. So, what does that say?

To top it off, he also sealed their children to him!

Yes, and?

So Henry has his wife and his children rightly sealed to him stripped from his eternal right to be with them because Joseph the prophet deemed his sealing had more meat to it than the regular sealings. And Joseph did much of this stuff without informing his wife.

What "regular sealings" are you talking about?

And he was so coercive in his methods that he had the other husbands standing in on these ceremonies when he was sealed to their wives?

How could it be coercive since they were standing there on their own free will?

Amazing.

Yes, amazing how you can't accept the simple explanation of "because he supported it and wanted to be there" and are making something up that isn't supported by evidence.

They should have looked at the fine print on their baptismal certificate where it stated they needed to leave their gonads at the door.

Your crudity aside, I find it odd how you condescendingly and paternalisticly sweep in to "defend" these honorable men and women that were voluntarily choosing this faith tradition over what they had.

Who gains exaltation like that?

I think this is called a straw man. You build up your own (and evidentially unsupported) argument and then beat it down.

And if it is so easy that a simple sealing can counteract the effects of agency (good or bad) why do we not seal people to the prophet today?

What do you know about the history of how this all developed and changed?

It was polygamy that was done away with, not sealings, after all.

Which of Josepeh polygamous "marriages" were "regular" marriages and which were levirate marriages and which were sealings?

But they can't. Not in the afterlife. It looks like the alpha male prophet wins out.

Try again.