Jump to content

Dante'S Polygamy


cinepro

Recommended Posts

??? Why. One can be sealed and not have intimate relations.

If Joseph Smith were married to these women then why wouldn't they have intimate relations? Simply because the women were also married to other men?

Link to post

Technically, that wouldn't be polyandry (and that was my point.)

If Joseph Smith were married to these women then why wouldn't they have intimate relations? Simply because the women were also married to other men?

Sigh. Let me spell it out. Polyandry, polygamy, monogomy which involve sealings are just that. It does NOT necessarily follow that intimate relations have occurred. Many of BY's wives were in name only. They were married but, but that doesn't mean they necessarily lived as married couples. Even today people can be married for convenience but not have intimate relations. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Marriage and sex are not synonymous.

Link to post

Have either of you been following this thread?

Are you understanding that polyandry is not by definition having an intimate relationship. It means one might be married but that can be in name only or for convenience not necessarily to live as man and wife.

Link to post

Sigh. Let me spell it out. Polyandry, polygamy, monogomy which involve sealings are just that. It does NOT necessarily follow that intimate relations have occurred. Many of BY's wives were in name only. They were married but, but that doesn't mean they necessarily lived as married couples. Even today people can be married for convenience but not have intimate relations. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Marriage and sex are not synonymous.

If you were following this thread, you'd know that I was suggestiong that Joseph didn't have intimate relations with the women in question.

For the sake of clarity, I'm trying to make the same distinction between polygamy (plolyandry) and plural marriage (or sealing) that I've seen Mormon apologists make.

(And your jumping in and arguing semantics just confusses the issue.)

To spell it out for you, my question to Questing Beast is how he presumes to know that Joseph had intimate relations with the wives of these other men he was sealed to (and I believe the idea of intimate relations is clearly included in what he meant by "Joseph's polyandry," which he said "died with him" because BY wouldn't have "dared" to continue the practice.)

Does that context help you understand what we were talking about before you jumped in here?

Link to post

Sigh. Let me spell it out. Polyandry, polygamy, monogomy which involve sealings are just that. It does NOT necessarily follow that intimate relations have occurred. Many of BY's wives were in name only. They were married but, but that doesn't mean they necessarily lived as married couples. Even today people can be married for convenience but not have intimate relations. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Marriage and sex are not synonymous.

Do you have a problem with Joseph Smith having sexual relations with his plural wives who were married to other men?

Link to post

This topic has come up here quite a lot. And it has already been pointed out clearly that the DNA evidence is lacking, but that there are a complex of possible causes for Joseph Smith to not have had any or many children by other women than Emma Smith; lack of frequency in sexual relations, lack of timing, lack of intent, i.e. no intent to actually produce offspring at that time because of the danger of discovery, etc. Just because Joseph Smith was fertile, and most of his polyandrous wives were fertile with their "real" husbands, it does not follow that the pairing of Joseph Smith and each of them would also be a facile or even fertile match; iirc, the research on fertility says that c. 10% of all couples are naturally infertile or almost so, even though singly neither the man or woman is infertile. So added together, all the causes for infertility in Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages can account for most of the objections to lack of evidence, vis-a-vis offspring. As for the rest, I am sure than not all of his polyandrous wives were intended to be sexual partners. But some of them were. Their own written accounts, the testimony of other witnesses, etc., cannot be held to justify the position that Joseph Smith had NO carnal knowledge of any other woman but Emma Smith....

Link to post

This topic has come up here quite a lot.

Yes it has. But I have never seen it explained why its perfectly okay for Smith to take a good and loyal man's wife for all eternity, as long as he doesn't have sex with her now.

I would have assumed that if you believe in that stuff, losing your wife for all eternity would be very troubling thought.

Link to post

This topic has come up here quite a lot. And it has already been pointed out clearly that the DNA evidence is lacking, but that there are a complex of possible causes for Joseph Smith to not have had any or many children by other women than Emma Smith; lack of frequency in sexual relations, lack of timing, lack of intent, i.e. no intent to actually produce offspring at that time because of the danger of discovery, etc. Just because Joseph Smith was fertile, and most of his polyandrous wives were fertile with their "real" husbands, it does not follow that the pairing of Joseph Smith and each of them would also be a facile or even fertile match; iirc, the research on fertility says that c. 10% of all couples are naturally infertile or almost so, even though singly neither the man or woman is infertile. So added together, all the causes for infertility in Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages can account for most of the objections to lack of evidence, vis-a-vis offspring. As for the rest, I am sure than not all of his polyandrous wives were intended to be sexual partners. But some of them were. Their own written accounts, the testimony of other witnesses, etc., cannot be held to justify the position that Joseph Smith had NO carnal knowledge of any other woman but Emma Smith....

Can someone interpret this roller coaster of a post for me?

Link to post

Yes it has. But I have never seen it explained why its perfectly okay for Smith to take a good and loyal man's wife for all eternity, as long as he doesn't have sex with her now.

I would have assumed that if you believe in that stuff, losing your wife for all eternity would be very troubling thought.

Don't look now, but it almost looks like you believe (with your deep concern) the marriages done by sealing will actually last for an eternity.

Link to post

Polyandry would require intimate relations here in mortality.

How do you know Joseph had intimate relations with the wives of these other men (here in mortality) when there's no DNA evidence to show that he fathered any children by them?

(And given your personal Theology, would it matter if it gave him "Joy"?)

I'm not sure that a purely "sealing" type of marriage would require carnal relations here in mortality in order to be valid. The point is made that not all of B. Young's many wives were sexual partners. And none of them were married to other men at the time of B. Young's marriages to them.

The lack of DNA evidence for offspring of Joseph Smith by his polygamous/polyandrous wives is only problematic, and in no way invalidates the factual evidence deriving from these women. In particular, as I've already noted before, Sylvia Sessions' deathbed confession to her daughter Josephine, that she was Joseph Smith's daughter, shows clearly that Sylvia had kept secret all her life the certainty that her relations with Joseph Smith had resulted in Josephine. DNA evidence to the contrary, Sylvia's memory of at least one carnal episode with Joseph Smith cannot be dismissed with a facile assertion that she wished for it so badly that she convinced herself that she had had sex with "the prophet" when in reality it was only a fantasy of her devising.

My personal "Theology" says that it is wrong to sneak around pretending to one lifestyle while practicing a radically alternate one. I deplore secrecy and "special/elite" status claims by those in authority. So Joseph Smith's sexual relations with the wives of other men are inexcusable. He was wrong.

But that does not invalidate Mormonism for those who believe in it, imho. I could accept Joseph Smith's faults up to that point. So that everything he taught and revealed prior to his polyandry could be held to have come from God. Joseph Smith fit the exact doctrine of a prophet being "removed from his place" when he started to lead the people of God astray. But the problem I have isn't with the origins of Mormonism: my difficulty was, and is, believing in the exclusive claims of various religions. I do not believe that "God" requires any such thing as compliance with ONE dogmatic exegesis for Existence....

Link to post

Don't look now, but it almost looks like you believe (with your deep concern) the marriages done by sealing will actually last for an eternity.

Not at all. I am trying to understand the rationale for those who believe in eternal sealing, but don't see this as a big deal.

Your response does nothing to clarify this apparent incongruity.

Link to post

Yes it has. But I have never seen it explained why its perfectly okay for Smith to take a good and loyal man's wife for all eternity, as long as he doesn't have sex with her now.

I would have assumed that if you believe in that stuff, losing your wife for all eternity would be very troubling thought.

That's a good point. The church has more recently (in the late 90's I believe) started to allow deceased women to be sealed to all husbands to whom she was legally married. So with the current policy men can have multiple wives in the afterlfe and women can have multiple husbands. This gives the impression that group marriage is what is going on in heaven. Maybe group marriage is what Joseph Smith was trying to establish and BY didn't quite catch on. *shrugs*

Link to post

See post # 136 "Isn't there some tv show to watch instead of obsessing over what Joseph Smith did behind closed doors?"

My question had nothing to do with Joseph Smith sex life.

Link to post

My question had nothing to do with Joseph Smith sex life.

Yes it has. But I have never seen it explained why its perfectly okay for Smith to take a good and loyal man's wife for all eternity, as long as he doesn't have sex with her now.

Of course, I am sure you were talking about another "Smith".

Link to post

Of course, I am sure you were talking about another "Smith".

My question was about eternal sealing not sex and was presented on the assumption that Smith did not have sex with these women.

I am sorry that was not clear to you, and if you were offended by my lack of clarity.

Link to post

This topic has come up here quite a lot. And it has already been pointed out clearly that the DNA evidence is lacking, but that there are a complex of possible causes for Joseph Smith to not have had any or many children by other women than Emma Smith; lack of frequency in sexual relations, lack of timing, lack of intent, i.e. no intent to actually produce offspring at that time because of the danger of discovery, etc. Just because Joseph Smith was fertile, and most of his polyandrous wives were fertile with their "real" husbands, it does not follow that the pairing of Joseph Smith and each of them would also be a facile or even fertile match; iirc, the research on fertility says that c. 10% of all couples are naturally infertile or almost so, even though singly neither the man or woman is infertile. So added together, all the causes for infertility in Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages can account for most of the objections to lack of evidence, vis-a-vis offspring. As for the rest, I am sure than not all of his polyandrous wives were intended to be sexual partners. But some of them were. Their own written accounts, the testimony of other witnesses, etc., cannot be held to justify the position that Joseph Smith had NO carnal knowledge of any other woman but Emma Smith....

The odds of two events occuring is equal to the product of the odds of each one occuring independently, i.e., if there is a 1 in 2 chance of 2 different events occuring, then there is a 1 in 4 chance of them both occuring.

So, if a couple has a 10% chance of being infertile, and if all of Joseph's sealings to women other than Emma produced no offspring because these particular "pairings' were infertile, then the likelihood of Joseph not producing progeny from all these "pairings" is in the realm of 0.00000000000000000000000000001% .

Link to post

The odds of two events occuring is equal to the product of the odds of each one occuring independently, i.e., if there is a 1 in 2 chance of 2 different events occuring, then there is a 1 in 4 chance of them both occuring.

So, if a couple has a 10% chance of being infertile, and if all of Joseph's sealings to women other than Emma produced no offspring because these particular "pairings' were infertile, then the likelihood of Joseph not producing progeny from all these "pairings" is in the realm of 0.00000000000000000000000000001% .

I'm pretty sure you would need to factor in the timing and frequency of their "meetings". Considering the surreptitious nature of the marriages, I doubt there were very many opportunities for conjugation with any specific wife.

Link to post

zelder:

I don't do political correctness. I am simply stating LDS doctrine.

I'm not sure I understand your point. The church has a doctrine stating that plural sealings between married men and women are about "family" and not marriage? Maybe if you could provide a link to the source of the exact doctrine you are referring to I might understand what you are talking about.

Link to post

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...