Questions About Polyandry

Oracle · August 21, 2007

Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?

MJNSW, don't allow the MAD witches of eastwick (that would be Jan, Calmoriah and Nighthawke) scare you from your very firmly grounded moral compass. They sound more like the very open swingers who live down the street from me and are so far off from mainstream mormonism that I am wondering when they actually set foot into a church building. If I were to go into ANY LDS Relief Society meeting and say "hey y'all, are you up for some polyandry?" they would be shocked, repulsed and think I was off my rocker. Swapping spouses is not exactly conducive to morally or spiritually healthy behavior.

I suspect that this has more to do with the nature to want to be argumentative than it does with sincere belief in such a bizarre practice as polyandry. In this life.........or the hereafters. I hope so, anyway. I am almost positive that if I approached any of the witches' husbands and asked for a little polyandry action that I would get much cooperation. From the wives, that is. I get plenty of cooperation from the male persuasion. I think these women know this. I think they would be up in arms if I approached their current spouses. Therefore I think they are just spouting crap.

So put your money where your mouths are, ladies. I am a long-haired blonde 5'4" female with 37-26-37 measurements. I am intelligent, athletic, artistic, affluent and love to interact with men in all arenas...the boardroom, the bedroom, the gym. My libido is very high, and I love my husband about six days a week. There's plenty more love where that comes from.

Oh. And God told me it is ok for me to approach your husbands. Just so ya know.

And please remember, there are no jealousies or contentions in the afterlife (Oracle wonders where that doctrine was pulled from as she recalls a certain WAR in heaven and knows that agency is a universal truth taught in the church) so you gals don't need to worry about a thing.

What say ye? Anyone? You guys seem pretty open-minded to me.

karl61 · August 21, 2007

Here's a link to the thoughts of someone who doesn't like early LDS polygamy : read all the thoughts but the link was regarding billthinks4himself.

http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_li...ges_per_page=16

It's okay if the Moderators close this thread if they want to.

Dale · August 21, 2007

The claim Fanny Alger was ever pregnant with Joseph Smith's child look's like slander. Ann Eliza Webb Young father Chauncey Webb appears to have been the source of the rumor. Ann Eliza I understand was about two years old, or possibly born after the incident with Fanny Alger. But in either case Ann Eliza webb only repeated a story she heard from others.

Not much polyandy action went on if the person's involved never consumnated the relationship. if they merely went through some ceremony not meant to violate existing marital vows I don't see any problem. To me it's a matter of getting over ourselve's, and not make a big deal out of a platonic sealing.

Jan · August 21, 2007

Knighthawke... if you noticed, I did not get my comments from wivesofjosephsmith.com I have never been to that site. I went to Fairs.
I stated my thoughts on the issue simply because Polygamy and Polyandry are 2 issues that I have a very hard time digesting regardless of what you throw out there. My perception of it is quite different from yours. I have read the same books, but I do believe that the women who participated (who said different things at different times in their lives) were duped into believing it was a righteous principal.
In my mind, they were sadly mistaken and that the men who implemented it abused their positions as heads of the church to implement their sick desires. That is my honest view of it.
Yes, JS did help bring about an amazing religion - but these topics hit a very sore spot with me. Just my feelings, but we were asked our thoughts on the matter and those are mine!

MJNSW, Wendy Ulrich gave a very interesting presentation at the FAIR conference this year. It had to do with which issues of church history and/or doctrine "bother" different people and why. I should clarify, she didn't discuss these in general; she made it very personal and asked us to look at our issues using a model meant for marriages. It was fascinating. There may be interesting reasons why people react differently to polygamy (polygyny and polyandry).

It's obviously OK for people to have different personal reactions to it - that is not at issue. I think what is going on here is when others try to speak for the women who experienced it - women who left their own words and testimonies about it (so we don't need people now to put words in their mouths or come to their "defense" when they were capable of defending/speaking for themselves).

Oracle, nice try but I think I'm going to ignore your personal rant.

Signed, One of the Witches (All the witches are probably Julianns, too, no?)

karl61 · August 21, 2007

Emily Partridge: " I cannot tell all Joseph said, but he said that the Lord had commanded (him) to enter into plural marriage an have given me to him. So he waited till the Lord told him. My mind has now prepared and would receive the principles. I do not think if I had gone through the ordeal I did that I could ever (have) gone off at night to meet him. But that was the only way (it could) be done then. Well Imarried there and then. Joseph went home his way and I going my way. A strange way of getting married wasen't. Brother Kimball married us, the 4th of March 1843.

Emily Partridge: "

but the last times she called us to her room I felt quite indignant and was determined it should be the last for it was becoming monotonous, and I am ashamed to say I felt indignant towards Joseph for submitting to Emma. But I see now he could do no different. When we went in Jospeh was there, he countenance was the perfect picture of despair. I cannot remember all that passed at the time but she insisited that we should promise to break our covenants, that we had made before God. Joseph asked her if we made her pomises required, if she would cease to trouble us, and not persisit in our marrying some one else. she made the promise. Joseph came to us and shook hands with us, and the understanding that all was ended between us.'

Emily Partridge: "After the interview was over we went downstairs. Joseph soon came into the room where I wasm said how do you fell Emily. My heart being still hard, I answered him rather short that I expected I felt as anybody would under the circumstance. He said you know my hands are tied. And he looked as if he wouls sink into the earth. I knew he spoke truly, and my heart was melted, allmy hard feeling was gone in a moment (toward him) but I had no time to speak for he was gone. Emma was on his track, and came in as he went out. She said Emily what did Joseph say to you? I answered, He asked me how I felt. She said yo might as well tell me, for I am determined that a stop shall be put to these things, and I want you to tell me what he says to you, I shall not tell you, he can say what he pleases to me, and I shall not report it to you, there has been mischief enough made, by doing that. I am as sick of these things as you can be. I said it in a tone that she knew I meant it."

what's that old saying: hell hath no fury like a woman scorned

after Joseph died she married Brigham Young:

I have been sick in bed for two days. am much better today. I fell rather dispirited and a good cry might do me good. I feel quite shamed to be known as a wife of the richest man in the territory, and yet we are so poor. I do not know why he is so loth to provide for me. My children are his children. He provides sumptuously for some of his family. If he was a poor man it would be different....He manifests a desire to cast me off, and I cannot ask him for anything. What his hired men will let me have I get, but it is like pulling teeth to get that sometimes. I feel very lonly tonight. I hope I do not sin in my feelings.

Emily writes: "Sunday. today I've been thinking, thinking, thinking. My mind goes back to days gone by. And what do I find, can I find anything so pleasant that i could wish to live it over again or even to dwell upon it in thought, with any degree of satisfaction. No I cannot. My life has been like a panorama of disagreeable pictures. As I scan them over one by one, they bring no joy, and I invariably wind up with tears. I have been heart hungry all my life, always hoping against hope, until thee years are nearly spent, and hope is dead for life but bright for the next. And then I aske myself what great or good things have I done that I should hope for better things in the next world, or what great trial or exploit can I recount like many others perhaps, that will bring honor and greatness. I can only sum it up in one word, and that is I am a "woman" or if that is not enough. I am "mother" and still I am, as the world calls it, "spiritual wife" of early days, when public opinion was like an avalanche buring all such beneath it's oppresive wight. Some will understand what it is to be a woman, mother, or an unloved "spiritual wife."

She must be mistaken and she just wrote things down on her bad days. Every Lady on this board would never trade places with her. That's a fact.

MJNSW · August 21, 2007

I think that different people respond differently for their own personal reasons. I just don't comprehend how someone is duped into believing it is or ever was a righteous principle. It just does not stand to reason in my mind or heart!

I do wonder how many women would stand 100% behind the principle if it was brought back into practice in our lifetimes... or men. Reading and living are 2 completely different things. You may say you have studied and prayed, but until you have been faced with it how can you defend it so wholeheartedly?

Kenngo1969 · August 22, 2007

I think that different people respond differently for their own personal reasons. I just don't comprehend how someone is duped into believing it is or ever was a righteous principle. It just does not stand to reason in my mind or heart!
I do wonder how many women would stand 100% behind the principle if it was brought back into practice in our lifetimes... or men. Reading and living are 2 completely different things. You may say you have studied and prayed, but until you have been faced with it how can you defend it so wholeheartedly?

Ummm ... because I know the presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who instituted and perpetuated it were prophets of God? <_<

Deborah · August 22, 2007

I think that different people respond differently for their own personal reasons. I just don't comprehend how someone is duped into believing it is or ever was a righteous principle. It just does not stand to reason in my mind or heart!

Did it occur to you they weren't "duped" but actually believed it? I find plural marriage very acceptable in certain situations and do not have a problem with it. I have even had friends I wouldn't have minded being sister wives with. I think people are too limited in their understanding of love and eternal relationships. Having had a very bad marriage I'd rather be the 10th wife a good man than the only wife of a louse, as I have said elsewhere. I honestly think it would be fun to have sister wives to do things with, especially when the husband does those irritating things husbands tend to do. Just think! You wouldn't have to try to talk him into going to a chick flick. You can go with one of the other wives.

Jan · August 22, 2007

I think that different people respond differently for their own personal reasons. I just don't comprehend how someone is duped into believing it is or ever was a righteous principle. It just does not stand to reason in my mind or heart!

Well, maybe because they weren't "duped." There's not much evidence of being duped. Zina said "no" three times, then said yes because she wasn't duped.

I do wonder how many women would stand 100% behind the principle if it was brought back into practice in our lifetimes... or men. Reading and living are 2 completely different things. You may say you have studied and prayed, but until you have been faced with it how can you defend it so wholeheartedly?

I think it would probably strike me as it did other women at the time. I would wear out my knees in prayer and wouldn't do it (personally) unless I received a witness that what was being asked of me was personally right for my situation. Just as I think these women did. I may get a "yes" or I may get a "no" and I would abide by whichever answer I got. There is no way of knowing until a genuine request would bee made of me.

karl61 · August 22, 2007

Well, maybe because they weren't "duped." There's not much evidence of being duped. Zina said "no" three times, then said yes because she wasn't duped.

yea, Zina the MARRIED lady with a husband who was alive and who she was living with said no three times, then said yes. Where were the boundaries of the early church leaders. There were none.

MJNSW · August 22, 2007

I think it would probably strike me as it did other women at the time. I would wear out my knees in prayer and wouldn't do it (personally) unless I received a witness that what was being asked of me was personally right for my situation. Just as I think these women did. I may get a "yes" or I may get a "no" and I would abide by whichever answer I got. There is no way of knowing until a genuine request would bee made of me.

Are you sure you won't be trying to convince yourself of the truth... only because a "prophet" or church leader approached you on the subject? Are you sure that you wouldn't be just trying to believe it to be a correct concept only because you believe them to be a leader or prophet... and so you convince yourself of the truth of it. Maybe to the point of believing you have received a witness of the truthfulness of it?

Kenngo1969 · August 22, 2007

MJNSW, don't allow the MAD witches of eastwick (that would be Jan, Calmoriah and Nighthawke) scare you from your very firmly grounded moral compass.

Gimme a break! Reasonable minds canâ??t simply differ on the subject â?¦ those who think plural marriage was a divinely-instituted principle must be bereft of any morals, while those who think it was not are the only ones who have â??very firmly grounded moral compass[es]â???? (Besides, I would think that any post in which the Witches of Eastwick were invoked would also have to include Juliann in the group! If I were she, I would be offended at the slight! :unsure:

They sound more like the very open swingers who live down the street from me and are so far off from mainstream mormonism that I am wondering when they actually set foot into a church building.

As long as weâ??re on the subject, Oracle, when did you last set foot in a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and can you provide me with the name of your ward and stake and your real name so I can check it out)? No? Thought not! Whatâ??s that old saying about â??people who live in glass housesâ? â?¦ ? And comparing those who defend plural marriage to swingers? Puh-LEEEAZE! <_< (I think thatâ??s called â??poisoning the wellâ? or something, isnâ??t it?)

If I were to go into ANY LDS Relief Society meeting and say "hey y'all, are you up for some polyandry?" they would be shocked, repulsed and think I was off my rocker.

And?

Swapping spouses is not exactly conducive to morally or spiritually healthy behavior.

And comparing plural marriage to â??swingingâ? and â??swapping spousesâ? is a gross caricaturization. But then, you know that, right? :angry:

I suspect that this has more to do with the nature to want to be argumentative than it does with sincere belief in such a bizarre practice as polyandry.

Youâ??re welcome to your a priori assumptions, and your welcome to â??suspectâ? whatever you want. But neither your a priori assumptions nor your suspicions deal with the fact that the vast majority of the women who lived the principle of plural marriage donâ??t share your opinion of it: not only were they quite capable of forming their own opinions, they were also quite capable of expressing themâ??they actually even did so, on occasion! Whodathunk?!! Itâ??s as if youâ??re telling them, â??When I want your opinion, Iâ??ll give it to you! Until then, you poor, dumb, deluded, defenseless dead Mormon women should shut up and let me defend you!â? Itâ??s fascinating on many levels, and actually amusing on others.

I am almost positive that if I approached any of the witches' husbands and asked for a little polyandry action that I would get much cooperation.

â??Actionâ?? Itâ??s amusing to me in a sad sort of way how the Modern Defenders of Dead Mormon Women (MDDMW) are obsessed with the (unknown) intimate practices of the men those women married. I guarantee you that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Wilford Woodruff were far less obsessed with sex than the MDDMW are. One has to wonder why that is, doesnâ??t one?

I get plenty of cooperation from the male persuasion.

Weâ??re thrilled fer ya, Hon!

I think these women know this.

You know what assuming does, Oracle? (It makes an A-*-* out of U & ME).

I think they would be up in arms if I approached their current spouses.

Right. And?

Therefore I think they are just spouting crap.

Noooo â?¦ now your post, on the other hand â?¦ Looks like it, smells like it, came from yourâ??well, never mind! :blink:

So put your money where your mouths are, ladies. I am a long-haired blonde 5'4" female with 37-26-37 measurements. I am intelligent, athletic, artistic, affluent and love to interact with men in all arenas...the boardroom, the bedroom, the gym. My libido is very high, and I love my husband about six days a week. There's plenty more love where that comes from.

whoop-te-do! Like I say, weâ??re thrilled fer ya, Hon!

Oh. And God told me it is ok for me to approach your husbands. Just so ya know.

Well, if you say God told you to tell these ladies itâ??s OK for you to approach their husbands, itâ??s good enough for me! Should be good enough for them too â?¦ Why not? Whaddaya say, ladies?

It's obviously OK for people to have different personal reactions to it - that is not at issue. I think what is going on here is when others try to speak for the women who experienced it - women who left their own words and testimonies about it (so we don't need people now to put words in their mouths or come to their "defense" when they were capable of defending/speaking for themselves).

Eh. what?! You think the MDDMW ought to let these poor, dumb, deluded, defenseless, dead Mormon women speak for themselves?!!! Thatâ??s heresy, Jan! Pure heresy, and I wonâ??t stand for it!!! :wub:

Are you sure you won't be trying to convince yourself of the truth... only because a "prophet" or church leader approached you on the subject? Are you sure that you wouldn't be just trying to believe it to be a correct concept only because you believe them to be a leader or prophet... and so you convince yourself of the truth of it. Maybe to the point of believing you have received a witness of the truthfulness of it?

Right. Not only were those Poor, Dumb, Defenseless, Deluded Mormon Women duped â?¦ any woman who thinks they werenâ??t has probably duped herself into thinking that!!! :huh:

Calm · August 22, 2007

I think that different people respond differently for their own personal reasons. I just don't comprehend how someone is duped into believing it is or ever was a righteous principle. It just does not stand to reason in my mind or heart!

I am open to the idea that the way celestial marriage as practiced plurally was incorrect, the purpose of sealing misinterpreted because leaders jumped to assumptions and filled in gaps instead of going to the Lord for more information on how to practice the principle (whether or not it was polygamous). And as far as eternal polygamy, I doubt mightily that it will be widespread if at all present as I just don't believe that there are that many more righteous women than men around as would be required for polygyny in the eternities.

Having said that....

There are two issues I can't avoid in examining plural marriage in the early church---first, the journals of the women who felt they personally were better people overall for having embraced it (reminds me of the Martin Handcart company), which also has the implication for me that given the removal of personal emotional and physical limitations in the next life, that it just might be a positive influence in some eternal lives as well...one thing my studies in psychology have demonstrated to me is the huge variation in what is actually needed by people for personal growth. There are few things that I am willing to rule out as just wrong for every last individual on earth. Now if God wants to rule them out, that's another story.

But even more important to me were those women who wrote of the spiritual manifestations that occurred to them that confirmed the righteousness of what they were being asked to do (and in one case, was according to her the first knowledge that she received, Vilate Kimball). If one chooses to disregard these spiritual encounters, even of being taught by angels, in this case, then why should one accept spiritual claims in any case? One must even discard one's own spiritual experiences as valid on these grounds unless one is willing to believe that these women were lying about their experiences and thus their spiritual witnesses were really nonexistant completely. I choose to believe that these spiritual experiences were the real thing and the fact that the women who chose to abide in their witnesses were remarkable women each in their own way just underscores the truth of their testimony for me...their fruit was good so what does that say about the choices they made on how they nurtured their tree?

Calm · August 22, 2007

Are you sure you won't be trying to convince yourself of the truth... only because a "prophet" or church leader approached you on the subject? Are you sure that you wouldn't be just trying to believe it to be a correct concept only because you believe them to be a leader or prophet... and so you convince yourself of the truth of it. Maybe to the point of believing you have received a witness of the truthfulness of it?

Since I'd follow the same method Jan is describing here, I'll give my own answer to this...

Why would this be any different than anything else I've prayed about? I have never tried to convince myself that a leader is right based solely on the fact that he or she is a leader...not sure I've even ever just try to convince myself that a leader was right period, just asked questions about the doctrine or principle being taught.

I have received personal witnesses that confirmed that their counsel was appropriate for me and other witnesses that they were wrong. Never had much of a problem believing my own witness trumped theirs when it came to my individual path.

karl61 · August 22, 2007

And comparing plural marriage to â??swingingâ? and â??swapping spousesâ? is a gross caricaturization. But then, you know that, right?

Benjamin Johnson:

"On the 15th May...the Prophet again Came and at my hosue (house) ocupied the Same Room & Bed with my sister that the month previous he had ocupied with the Daughter of the Late Bishop Partridge as his wife"

karl61 · August 22, 2007

Since I'd follow the same method Jan is describing here, I'll give my own answer to this...
Why would this be any different than anything else I've prayed about? I have never tried to convince myself that a leader is right based solely on the fact that he or she is a leader...not sure I've even ever just try to convince myself that a leader was right period.
I have received personal witnesses that confirmed that their counsel was appropriate for me and other witnesses that they were wrong. Never had much of a problem believing my own witness trumped theirs when it came to my individual path.

calmoriah: they were shocked and repulsed when they were asked, asking them to either cheat on their husband or help him cheat on emma. What would you do if you were eighteen and someone told you that the bishop wanted to talk to you and then explained that god had given you to him. But it must be kept a secret. You would feel the same way they felt. Your dreams just like their dreams of a husband, home, family, dog, grandchildren would be theatened.

Calm · August 22, 2007

calmoriah: they were shocked and repulsed when they were asked, asking them to either cheat on their husband or help him cheat on emma. What would you do if you were eighteen and someone told you that the bishop wanted to talk to you and then explained that god had given you to him. But it must be kept a secret. You would feel the same way they felt. Your dreams just like their dreams of a husband, home, family, dog, grandchildren would be theatened.

karl,

I prefer doing my thinking for myself, thank you. Don't expect me to treat you seriously at this point.

Jan · August 22, 2007

yea, Zina the MARRIED lady with a husband who was alive and who she was living with said no three times, then said yes. Where were the boundaries of the early church leaders. There were none.

IIRC, Zina was first approached before she was married to Jacobs.

Karl, I know you've read some stuff. But it seems selective or maybe letting some time go by and revisiting this later would be a good thing.

Jan · August 22, 2007

karl,
I prefer doing my thinking for myself, thank you. Don't expect me to treat you seriously at this point.

I second this Karl. You seem to want to rob these dead women of THEIR eyewitness and expert testimony of what happened. You somehow know better than they did. You trying to do the same for Cal and me is insulting as well. You are certainly entitled to your own personal reactions to polygamy; please allow others the same, including these dead polygamous women.

Calm · August 22, 2007

It just does not stand to reason in my mind or heart!

Just adding one more thought...

My thoughts on this issue have developed overtime though I've never had any significant trouble with it probably having been exposed to the idea in my youth through family history and hearing the good, bad and ugly about it. I didn't like either JS or BY all that much growing up, so it was not likely my rationalizing their behaviour. I've also always been more interested in understanding doctrine than history, my studies in psychology demonstrating more than sufficiently to me that we have a hard enough time understanding the what, whys and wherefores of those who live with us, let alone someone we have only a small amount (comparatively speaking) information about and never personally encountered.

One main development has come about due to my being a wife and mother. There have been several times in my life where I've had to seriously face the possibility that I might die young (thankfully, each time it turned out differently). I am someone who tends to examine the future quite a bit in an effort to use my talents and time to the best effect. As such, I examined how I would want my family to live if at sometime they didn't have me around. First off, my husband is an extremely loving man whose life center is his family. Not having someone beside him to share his life with him would be a tragedy, imo. Yes, he could do it, but why should he have to? Second, I have seen what happens when kids grow up without a mother or father...it's very hard for them. Again, they could do it, but why should they have to? In what way does it diminish me or what I've done for them and their love for me to have someone else fill the role in her own unique way for them if I'm not there to do it? And if it doesn't when I'm not present, does it have to if I am?