Learning That Joseph Practiced Plural Marriage

[Vance]

Can you give me a link to these details? A search of "polyandry" on LDS.ORG doesn't turn up anything. http://www.lds.org/s...yandry〈=eng

Gee, I wonder if that is because "polyandry" isn't an accurate description of a woman being sealed to more than one man.

to quote ERayR, "Did I get it right? Did I?"

Edited August 3, 2012 by Vance

[thews]

Gee, I wonder if that is because "polyandry" isn't an accurate description of a woman being sealed to more than one man.

to quote ERayR, "Did I get it right? Did I?"

I'll ask you again... can you give me a link to a reference that defines polyandry?

Edited August 3, 2012 by thews

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'll ask you again... can you give me a link to a reference that defines polyandry?

Can you prove that JS practiced Polyandry? You first.

[KevinG]

Hes confused on sealings vs. marriage vs. sex. That is the lie he is buying.

But his well is obviously thoroughly poisoned and he seems to like the flavor.

[Nevo]

Can you prove that JS practiced Polyandry? You first.

I don't understand how long-time participants on this board can still play dumb about polyandry. This topic re-hashed here ad nauseam. Anyway, here is Richard Bushman: "All told, ten of Joseph's plural wives were married to other men. All of them went on living with their first husbands after marrying the Prophet." (Rough Stone Rolling, 439).

If you want documentary evidence, see, e.g., Joseph Smith Collection, LDS Church Archives, MS 155, box 1, folder 6, page 320; cf. Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde, Affidavit, Salt Lake Co., Utah Territory, 1 May 1869, in Joseph F. Smith, Affidavits about Celestial Marriage, 1:15.

KevinG thinks that the "stories of [Joseph Smith] taking wives while their husbands were on missions" lack credibility, yet Thomas Bullock, who was in a position to know about such things, matter-of-factly records in the Prophet's journal Joseph's polyandrous marriage to Marinda Johnson Hyde in April 1842, while Orson Hyde was on a two-year mission to the Holy Land. For the "details," see Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, pp. 235–242.

[ERayR]

I don't understand how long-time participants on this board can still play dumb about polyandry. This topic re-hashed here ad nauseam. Anyway, here is Richard Bushman: "All told, ten of Joseph's plural wives were married to other men. All of them went on living with their first husbands after marrying the Prophet." (Rough Stone Rolling, 439).

If you want documentary evidence, see, e.g., Joseph Smith Collection, LDS Church Archives, MS 155, box 1, folder 6, page 320; cf. Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde, Affidavit, Salt Lake Co., Utah Territory, 1 May 1869, in Joseph F. Smith, Affidavits about Celestial Marriage, 1:15.

KevinG thinks that the "stories of [Joseph Smith] taking wives while their husbands were on missions" lack credibility, yet Thomas Bullock, who was in a position to know about such things, matter-of-factly records in the Prophet's journal Joseph's polyandrous marriage to Marinda Johnson Hyde in April 1842, while Orson Hyde was on a two-year mission to the Holy Land. For the "details," see Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, pp. 235–242.

You really do need to get Bryan C. Hales presentation at this years FAIR conference on this topic.

[USU78]

You really do need to get Bryan C. Hales presentation at this years FAIR conference on this topic.

Agreed. It is, moreover, curious that he would miss the point entirely that the post he was complaining about was pointing out the silliness of using "polyandry" as a search term @ lds.org, then complaining that it, a term ill-suited to the phenomenon and question-begging in the extreme, produces no hits.

Sheesh.

[ERayR]

Agreed. It is, moreover, curious that he would miss the point entirely that the post he was complaining about was pointing out the silliness of using "polyandry" as a search term @ lds.org, then complaining that it, a term ill-suited to the phenomenon and question-begging in the extreme, produces no hits.

Sheesh.

Don't you remember it is all supposed to be at lds.org and in all the Sunday classrooms?

[Nevo]

You really do need to get Bryan C. Hales presentation at this years FAIR conference on this topic.

I'd be interested in reading Hales's presentation, but I don't think his position on polyandry has changed. Hales has written elsewhere that "it is undeniable that between 1841 and 1843, Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were already civilly married to other men" (Brian C. Hales, “The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?” Mormon Historical Studies 9, no. 1 [2008]: 41).

[USU78]

I'd be interested in reading Hales's presentation, but I don't think his position on polyandry has changed. Hales has written elsewhere that "it is undeniable that between 1841 and 1843, Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were already civilly married to other men" (Brian C. Hales, “The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?” Mormon Historical Studies 9, no. 1 [2008]: 41).

As is always the case, new sources are unearthed and new thoughts thought in the never-ending search for historical TRVTH.

I agree: you should read the paper when it gets posted on the FAIR website.

[blackstrap]

Notice the different terms used .ie. sealed vs. married. Maybe that is a hint?

[KevinG]

Notice the different terms used .ie. sealed vs. married. Maybe that is a hint?

I have tried to explain this in the past but it gets ignored in the rush to shock people about the Prophet Joseph. That's why I included willful ignorance in my list of possible reasons for the ongoing debate.

[ERayR]

Notice the different terms used .ie. sealed vs. married. Maybe that is a hint?

Don't hold your breath till the difference is noted. Most people, even church members, conflate the two.

[Nevo]

Notice the different terms used .ie. sealed vs. married. Maybe that is a hint?

No, it isn't. If you read Hales's article, you will see that he routinely refers to polyandrous "sealings" as "marriages" (as do Richard Bushman, Todd Compton, et al.). Here are some examples:

• "Historical evidence supports that the only well-documented offspring of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages is Josephine Lyon, daughter of Sylvia Sessions Lyon. The traditional view of Smith’s plural sealing to Sylvia is that it was polyandrous.... Accordingly, the presence of sexuality is often generalized upon Smith’s other polyandrous marriages by assumption and speculation." (41)
  

• "Different opinions exist regarding the possibility that Joseph Smith’s polyandrous marriages included sexuality." (42)
  

• "Sylvia’s case ... should not be grouped with the other ten polyandrous marriages identified by Compton and other researchers." (53)
  

Edited August 4, 2012 by Nevo

[blackstrap]

OK let's see the DNA confirmation that J.Lyon was an offspring of JS. Is there any lineage available to test from her? Maybe I should quote Mitt.

[Calm]

No, it isn't. If you read Hales's article, you will see that he routinely refers to polyandrous "sealings" as "marriages" (as do Richard Bushman, Todd Compton, et al.). Here are some examples:

• "Historical evidence supports that the only well-documented offspring of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages is Josephine Lyon, daughter of Sylvia Sessions Lyon. The traditional view of Smith’s plural sealing to Sylvia is that it was polyandrous.... Accordingly, the presence of sexuality is often generalized upon Smith’s other polyandrous marriages by assumption and speculation." (41)
  

• "Different opinions exist regarding the possibility that Joseph Smith’s polyandrous marriages included sexuality." (42)
  

• "Sylvia’s case ... should not be grouped with the other ten polyandrous marriages identified by Compton and other researchers." (53)
  

Doesn't he also conclude that there was no sexuality connected with any of the cases where and when the woman was cohabitating with another man and therefore were not polyandrous in the usual understanding? For example, if J Lyon was Joseph's biological daughter the only way Sylvia could be so certain was because she was being sexually exclusive with Joseph.

Edited August 5, 2012 by calmoriah

[Nevo]

Doesn't he also conclude that there was no sexuality connected with any of the cases where and when the woman was cohabitating with another man and therefore were not polyandrous in the usual understanding?

I'm not sure what you mean by "polyandrous in the usual understanding." My understanding of polyandry is that it is simply "polygamy in which a woman has more than one husband." As you know, on his website Hales distinguishes between "ceremonial polyandry" (which he affirms that Joseph Smith "unquestionably participated in") and "sexual polyandry" (which he argues that Joseph Smith did not practice).

Edited September 13, 2012 by Nevo

[USU78]

I'm not sure what you mean by "polyandrous in the usual understanding." My understanding of polyandry is that it is simply "polygamy in which a woman has more than one husband." As you know, on his website Hales distinguishes between "ceremonial polyandry" (which he affirms that Joseph Smith "unquestionably participated in") and "sexual polyandry" (which he argues that Joseph Smith did not practice). I agree with Hales that there is no good evidence for physical intimacy in Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages apart from the special case of Sylvia Sessions Lyon.

The presentation at FAIR asserted that there would have been no cohabitation in cases where JSJr was merely sealed to a woman for eternity, and in those cases where there was a sealing for time and eternity, there would have been consent of the then prior husband and a divorce. The assertion was also that assumptions by the dirty-minded that JSJr was boinking other men's wives go entirely contrary to Section 132's statements about adultery.

He made a compelling and powerful argument.

To ignore it and make assertions about another's, especially a dead another's, personal worthiness without pretty d@mn good evidence says more about the asserter than the now long-dead other.

[BrianHales]

For anyone interested in my response to Michael Quinn's comments on my polyandry presentation, here's a link:

http://josephsmithspolygamy.com/BCH_RESPONSE_to_%20Quinn.pdf

Thanks!

Brian Hales

[Jude2]

I don’t know why but the idea of polygamy has never bothered me, I got a woman all picked out for my hubby, she drywalls, grows a beautiful garden and can bake bread. What more could I ask for?

[ERayR]

I don’t know why but the idea of polygamy has never bothered me, I got a woman all picked out for my hubby, she drywalls, grows a beautiful garden and can bake bread. What more could I ask for?

You are a celestial woman.

[Calm]

For anyone interested in my response to Michael Quinn's comments on my polyandry presentation, here's a link:

http://josephsmithsp...E_to_ Quinn.pdf

Thanks!

Brian Hales

Excellent, thank you.

[rpn]

I don't think Sylvia Session's daughter is "well documented" as JS's bio daughter at all. The word's she used can just as easily be interpreted to mean that daughter is sealed to JS and therefore his daughter, as that she is his bio daughter.

[rpn]

Can anyone tell me if Quinn's response (the one the Hales responded to ) is available by link?

[Jude2]

Excellent, thank you.

Yes thank you for that information.

I read an article about the Holy Order and I notice that most of these polygamist wives were part of it. So I just figured it was their test, like Isaac’s.

Throughout the Bible and Book of Mormon it was always the men going through the testing. Here we have women being tested and receiving temple blessings and somehow that is a bad thing.

They were asked to do something which was morally wrong and go by the Spirit’s witness that Joseph Smith was the Lord’s prophet. It wasn’t about sex at all it if were there would have been a whole lot of little Jospehs running around but there weren’t.

Joseph needed sisters who were sealed to a priesthood holder so they could start preparing for the temple ceremonies these women went through their test and then were given their temple blessings and responsibilities.

Orson Pratt’s reaction impressed me and was the turning point for me. Where at first he reacted angrily as any husband would siding with his wife he makes an about face and returns to the church. I know Van Wagoner sided with Sarah Pratt saying the charges against her were improbable and I know he is the historian but I’ve dealt with an adulteress lying individual before. They are capable of telling some whoppers, they will say anything to protect themselves.

I have a question about the translation of the Book of Mormon. When Joseph got to Jacob 2 who was his scribe, was it Emma? Could they have known that early what was coming? It seems to me if I read “For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife…For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things” I think I would have said What??