Book Notice: Brian Hale'S 3-Volume "Joseph Smith'S Polygamy"

[webbles]

IIRC, Brigham Young allowed a woman (whose husband was infertile), to have a second husband for time only, so as to raise up children/seed. Kind of a levirate marriage, I suppose.

That's my ancestor! I'm actually through one of the sons that was born through the second husband. It's a complicated story. They actually got divorced (or unsealed for time only), then she was married to the second, the first left to go make some money (and probably didn't want to be around because of emotional reasons). After two sons were born, she was divorced from the second and resealed to the first. Unfortunately, he died a few years later and she was taking care of by the second (though there wasn't any relationship that time since they weren't married).

[ALarson]

Didn't Brigham Young have many polyandrous marriages too?

IIRC, he had 7 or 8 (I'll need to look that up). Maybe none of them were sexual other than his marriage to Zina Diantha Huntington (who had been sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity and was legally married to Henry Bailey Jacobs).

Do most believe that Brigham Young's relationship with her was ok as long as she wasn't also having sex with her legal husband or that it was ok because Brigham Young was only sealed to her for time and not for eternity?

[webbles]

Didn't Brigham Young have many polyandrous marriages too?

IIRC, he had 7 or 8 (I'll need to look that up). Maybe none of them were sexual other than his marriage to Zina Diantha Huntington (who had been sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity and was legally married to Henry Bailey Jacobs).

Do most believe that Brigham Young's relationship with her was ok as long as she wasn't also having sex with her legal husband or that it was ok because Brigham Young was only sealed to her for time and not for eternity?

You might be talking about the other widows of Joseph Smith. I don't know of any other polyandrous marriages.

And I don't have a problem with Zina/Brigham's relationship because I see it more as a divorce from Henry and then a marriage to Brigham (yes, it technically wasn't that but the it is more or less the same thing).

[Questing Beast]

He was arguing that some of the sealings were for "eternity only". Take a look at his first diagram (the one with the 14 wives, their husbands, and "Eternity Only Sealing" and "Sealing with "Front" Husband". The bottom three are not "eternity only" sealings but actual "time and for all eternity" sealings. Also, in the paragraph that starts "The first one is Sylvia Sessions Lyon", he states that he believes that Josephine is Joseph and Sylvia's child.

Didn't somebody assert that DNA tests on Josephine's descendants show no connection to Joseph Smith? If that is the case, then her "first" husband was the father of Josephine, yet Sylvia was having relations with Joseph Smith at the same time, in order to be convinced that Joseph was Josephine's father. This would shoot down the theory of monogamous sexual relations....

[webbles]

Didn't somebody assert that DNA tests on Josephine's descendants show no connection to Joseph Smith? If that is the case, then her "first" husband was the father of Josephine, yet Sylvia was having relations with Joseph Smith at the same time, in order to be convinced that Joseph was Josephine's father. This would shoot down the theory of monogamous sexual relations....

I believe that is still under study. Since Josephine is a daughter, it makes it harder to prove fatherhood (you don't have the easy Y chromosome). The children that have been disproven were all boys and I believe they all had direct male lines.

[Bart Burk]

I heard him at the FAIR conference and was very surprised at this. Hales is a treasure trove of information and because of that I find the need to base so much on what privately occurred in these situations of particular concern. If it is ever proven that there were marital relations (the discovery of a child, for instance), he will have inadvertently shown JS as a false prophet.

It wouldn't show that he was a false prophet -- it would show that Joseph believed in the principles he was revealing. If you're going to marry someone it seems kind of natural that sex would be involved. I guess there is also a belief among some that Joseph never revealed plural marriage at all -- they say that all the evidence indicating Joseph believed in plural marriage was trumped up by Cochranists within the Twelve without Joseph's approval. They would claim that D&C 132 is the work of Brigham Young instead of Joseph Smith. It's an interesting topic, but in this day and age maybe not a very important one to our salvation.

[ALarson]

You might be talking about the other widows of Joseph Smith. I don't know of any other polyandrous marriages.

And I don't have a problem with Zina/Brigham's relationship because I see it more as a divorce from Henry and then a marriage to Brigham (yes, it technically wasn't that but the it is more or less the same thing).

The only two polyandrous marriages that were to Joseph Smith's widows were Mary Elizabeth Rollins (she was still married to Adam Lightner and not divorced); and Zina Diantha Huntington (still married to Henry Bailey Jacobs, not divorced).

All of Brigham Young's other polyandrous marriages were not to widows of Joseph Smith (there were at least 6 more and all of their husbands were still living and were not divorced when Brigham Young married them).

These are all well documented too.

I guess I just wonder why there seems to be two different standards when discussing the polyandrous and polygamous marriages (and sexual relations) of Joseph Smith vs. Brigham Young and other early church leaders?

There are many active members who will argue vehemently that none of Joseph's plural marriage were sexual in nature but then readily accept that other men had sex with their plural wives.

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

Edited February 5, 2013 by ALarson

[Calm]

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

I think it is possible that many have identified with Joseph Smith as he is followed in his history from a young man with questions through marriage up until his death at a pretty young age. He never becomes a stern patriarch for them as BY does. If so, then they might experience discomfort when they find out he is perhaps quite different from them after all in choices he made and his willingness to put obedience to God first no matter what creates an image of perhaps them being required to make such a sacrifice that they have no desire to make even if they are committed to obedience to God first and foremost, etc.

[webbles]

The only two polyandrous marriages that were to Joseph Smith's widows were Mary Elizabeth Rollins (she was still married to Adam Lightner and not divorced); and Zina Diantha Huntington (still married to Henry Bailey Jacobs, not divorced).

All of Brigham Young's other polyandrous marriages were not to widows of Joseph Smith (there were at least 6 more and all of their husbands were still living and were not divorced when Brigham Young married them).

These are all well documented too.

I guess I just wonder why there seems to be two different standards when discussing the polyandrous and polygamous marriages (and sexual relations) of Joseph Smith vs. Brigham Young and other early church leaders?

There are many active members who will argue vehemently that none of Joseph's plural marriage were sexual in nature but then readily accept that other men had sex with their plural wives.

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

Apparently, it is considered that the Joseph Smith's polyandry is different from Brigham Young's. Over at http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Polyandry, it says "This variant of plural marriage does not seem to have been a feature of Utah polygamy under Brigham Young and his successors." I guess Joseph Smith's polyandry is different and that's why people treat it differently. But I am having problems figuring out what is different.

[juliann]

Apparently, it is considered that the Joseph Smith's polyandry is different from Brigham Young's. Over at http://en.fairmormon..._book/Polyandry, it says "This variant of plural marriage does not seem to have been a feature of Utah polygamy under Brigham Young and his successors." I guess Joseph Smith's polyandry is different and that's why people treat it differently. But I am having problems figuring out what is different.

I'm still back at wondering why polygyny is more acceptable than polyandry. Since sexual polyandry is given the go ahead in 132, it is interesting that there is such an effort made to prove women weren't really involved in it. It also becomes a little absurd when they are switching partners, but all of the attention is paid to the time between the switch, not switching partners.

[webbles]

I'm still back at wondering why polygyny is more acceptable than polyandry. Since sexual polyandry is given the go ahead in 132, it is interesting that there is such an effort made to prove women weren't really involved in it. It also becomes a little absurd when they are switching partners, but all of the attention is paid to the time between the switch, not switching partners.

One verse that hints at it doesn't really seem like a go ahead. Also, Brian Hale brought up an interesting point. Given that 132 was revealed after most of the polyandrous relationships, why is it only barely hinted. Polygyny, on the other hand, gets multiple verses.

But I do think some women did search out Joseph Smith (and Brigham Young and other leaders) and asked to be sealed to them for at least eternity and probably a few did for time as well. I think there are even some statements to that effect from some of the women.

[ALarson]

Apparently, it is considered that the Joseph Smith's polyandry is different from Brigham Young's. Over at http://en.fairmormon..._book/Polyandry, it says "This variant of plural marriage does not seem to have been a feature of Utah polygamy under Brigham Young and his successors." I guess Joseph Smith's polyandry is different and that's why people treat it differently. But I am having problems figuring out what is different.

I also can see no difference between Joseph Smith's polyandry and Brigham Young's polyandry.

The most interesting case to study is Zina Diantha Huntington. Her husband (Henry) was an active member of the church when Joseph married Zina (and she was pregnant at that time too). That's why I believe there may be a doubt as to who is the father of that child.

But, Henry came out to Utah with Zina and was still married to her and active in the church. She was already sealed to Joseph Smith for time and all eternity.

Can anyone explain why Brigham Young felt he needed to marry Zina and be sealed to her for time only?

I just don't understand this.

Edited February 6, 2013 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

CFR please

Here is a site put out by Brian. It looks like Malissa Lott is agreeing that sexual relations were involved but not in so many words.

http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/JSPSexuality/MalissaLottSRhtml.html

[juliann]

One verse that hints at it doesn't really seem like a go ahead. Also, Brian Hale brought up an interesting point. Given that 132 was revealed after most of the polyandrous relationships, why is it only barely hinted. Polygyny, on the other hand, gets multiple verses.

It doesn't take more than one verse to be valid. And there is nothing hinting in the instruction that a woman with another man is not committing adultery if she has been annointed. The only possibly confusing element would be having to remove the negatives which may cloud what it actually says for some. But grammar does not change the meaning. It unequivocably says that a woman with "another man" is not committing adultery. There is no stipulation that she must put a year between those men. It sets it out plainly and clearly. She is not committing adultery and by anyone's definition, that means she is allowed to have relations with more than one man just as men are allowed to have relations with more than two women. I continue to wonder why there is such a need to marginalize and even discard a canonized verse with indisputable instruction merely because it about a woman rather than a man.

Here is a site put out by Brian. It looks like Malissa Lott is agreeing that sexual relations were involved but not in so many words.

http://www.josephsmi...LottSRhtml.html

That is a long response to Quinn but very helpful. Thanks. Hales sets up his own bias with this odd statement about Quinn.

That he, as an apparent defender of the position that the Prophet practiced sexual polyandry,

Hales then outlines why Quinn is making errors. Hales then procedes to do exactly the same thing. He criticizes Quinn for "detecting sexuality" where it's not mentioned. Hales then detects no sexuality where it's not mentioned and I'm sure most would agree it highly unlikely that such things would be mentioned in that era so Hales has set up an advantage for himself that isn't reasonable.

This is what I am now seeing in all those who tackle this topic, "the conclusions may be more a function of a reviewer’s biases" Quinn is apparently the only one to start with the opposite bias but to exclude anyone else from bias is not convincing.

"a subjective exercise." when others don't share the same bias. Without proof or statements outlining everyone's sex life, it is going to be subjective regardless of the conclusion.

"It illustrates that with enough assumptions, virtually anything may be considered "possible." Ditto.

Here at the beginning of Quinn's essay we can detect several problematic tendencies that are repeated throughout. First is an ability to detect sexuality where sexuality is not mentioned. Daniel H. Well's letter does not refer to conjugality, but Quinn affirms its existence in the sealing. Of course sexuality may be implied (see below), but inferring its presence in neutral language is a subjective exercise. Hence, the conclusions may be more a function of a reviewer’s biases, than of the historical evidences being reviewed.

Second is the willingness to accept multiple assumptions. By assuming a sexual relationship between Esther and Joseph Smith and, at the same time assuming a sexual relationship between her and her legal husband, neither of which is documented, the conclusion that "sexual polyandry" is at least a "possibility" is supported. It illustrates that with enough assumptions, virtually anything may be considered "possible."

Third, contradictory evidences are generally ignored. Contradictory evidences may be historical or theological. For example, Joseph Smith taught that if he were sealed to a woman for "time and eternity," that marriage covenant would cause all "old covenants," including legal marriages, to be "done away" (D&C 22:1, 132:4). If Joseph and Esther were thus sealed for "time and eternity" as Quinn affirms (and is not otherwise documented), her civil union to Albert would have

Hales simply provides supposition to rebut supposition, always based on a created rule that if sexuality is not mentioned it didn't exist.

Forth is a tendency to interpret ambiguous evidence in extreme ways. In his analysis, Quinn asserts that "the letter itself did not allege" that Esther's "adhering" to the "sealing for eternity" is what "nearly broke" Albert's heart. This interpretation is debatable. Regardless, a more extreme view is promoted that a "sexual relationship" actually broke his heart. However, Well's statement does not mention a "sexual relationship," but a "sealed" relationship is referenced twice in "the letter." Furthermore, Quinn states: "Esther's 'intention of adhering to that relationship' sounds like a reference to a sexual relationship…"

I see no explanation as to it being common to casually discuss intimate matters, thus justifying a position that if that is not found, it did not exist. That seems to me to be the extreme position, especially since sealings or marriages were considered to be real in polygamous relationships. The burden of proof rests on those who want to exclude marital relations. Simply accusing the other side of bias or extreme positions or merely demanding that only one conclusion can be reached from an inconclusive statement is not rational. His further insistence that there must be records of protests from husbands takes three assumptions, that they would protest in such a closed community, all protests were preserved... and that they knew anything beyond the sealings.

Bias to this extent is just outright polemics no matter who does it and it is just not a respectful exploration of these women's lives.

[awyatt]

The most interesting case to study is Zina Diantha Huntington. Her husband (Henry) was an active member of the church when Joseph married Zina (and she was pregnant at that time too). That's why I believe there may be a doubt as to who is the father of that child.

But, Henry came out to Utah with Zina and was still married to her and active in the church. She was already sealed to Joseph Smith for time and all eternity.

Can anyone explain why Brigham Young felt he needed to marry Zina and be sealed to her for time only?

I just don't understand this.

You are conflating a lot of facts (and myths) in your recounting. Here's the most complete paper published on the topic of Zina and her marriages. If you are at all interested in the topic, it is worth the read.

-Allen

[juliann]

You are conflating a lot of facts (and myths) in your recounting. Here's the most complete paper published on the topic of Zina and her marriages. If you are at all interested in the topic, it is worth the read.

-Allen

Excellent. I have to take it back that no one has approached this without bias. There isn't even a hint of it and you allow for all possibilities without setting up artificial rules as to why it must be one way or another.

(I should clarify that I stopped doing research on this years ago, so when I say I haven't seen something it might not mean much. Greg Smith has done some very good work, too.)

Edited February 7, 2013 by juliann

[ALarson]

You are conflating a lot of facts (and myths) in your recounting. Here's the most complete paper published on the topic of Zina and her marriages. If you are at all interested in the topic, it is worth the read.

-Allen

Where am I conflating "a lot of facts (and myths)"? Even in the link you provided, it supports what I posted above and my question remains unanswered as to why Brigham Young felt he needed to marry Zina for time when her husband was still alive and still active in the church and she'd previously been sealed to Joseph Smith for time & eternity.

If you don't have an answer, that's fine, but I am left wondering. Maybe it'll just have to be left unanswered for now?

Thanks for the info though as it was interesting to read.

Here's from your link:

Marriage to Brigham Young

After the 1844 death of Joseph Smith, the Saints in Nauvoo redoubled their efforts to complete the temple. Early on the morning of January 3, 1846, Henry and Zina received their washings, anointings, and endowments, being among the first company through the temple that day.²⁰ A month later they were back in the temple, on February 2, 1846. On this day Zina received her second anointing²¹ from Parley P. Pratt,²² but there is no record of such being done for Henry.

The records, however, do indicate that sealings were performed that day that involved Zina:

Joseph Smith (martyred) Dec 23, 1805 Sharon, Windsor Co. Vermont

Zina Diantha Huntington Jan 31 – 1821 Watertown, Jefferson Co. N.Y. were sealed husband & wife for time & all eternity (Prest. Brigham Young acting proxy for the deceased).

Brigham Young & Zina Diantha Smith were then sealed husband & wife for time by H.C. Kimball in presence of William D. Huntington, & Henry B. Jacobs & J.D.L. Young, Henry B. Jacobs expressed his willingness that it should be so in the presence of these witnesses done at 15 m. to 6.

Franklin D. Richards Clk.<a href="http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-zina-and-her-men-an-examination-of-the-changing-marital-state-of-zina-diantha-huntington-jacobs-smith-young#en23">²³

Shortly before 6:00 PM, Zina was sealed for time to Brigham Young, as “husband & wife.” This was done in the presence of Zina’s father and husband, as well as John D. Lee. This ceremony occurred only one week before leaving Nauvoo, and Zina was heavy with child at the time–her second child, fathered by Henry Jacobs, would be born on the banks of the Chariton River less than seven weeks later.

The wording of these temple records is interesting. Note that in the first proxy sealing Zina is referred to as “Zina Diantha Huntington,” and in the second as “Zina Diantha Smith.” What makes this interesting, of course, is that Zina had been married to Henry Jacobs for almost five years by this time. Even though Henry Jacobs is in the room, witnessing his wife being sealed to other men, recognition of Zina’s marriage to him is not granted in the record and, presumably, not in the verbalization of the ordinances performed that day.

Edited February 6, 2013 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

You are conflating a lot of facts (and myths) in your recounting. Here's the most complete paper published on the topic of Zina and her marriages. If you are at all interested in the topic, it is worth the read.

-Allen

So many hurt in the name of polygamy. Poor Henry was probably so ill because his heart was broken. Shame on Joseph & Brigham for doing that to him & Zina. Are we a New Testament church or Old Testament? Seems this occurred because Joseph was trying to restore some things. Here I go again, two heavy steps back again. Having faith is difficult in light of history like the story of Henry and Zina.

[awyatt]

ALarson and Tacenda,

You both seem to forget that Zina had a voice in all this. She was not a shrinking violet; she never was. To say that "Brigham married her" without any consideration that she agreed or to say "shame on Joseph & Brigham for doing that to him & Zina" discounts personal choice in all this. Zina had choice; that is the whole point. She chose to be sealed to Joseph after she turned him down multiple times and after she was married to Henry. She chose, after Joseph's death, to be married to Brigham with Henry standing right there as a witness to the ceremony.

We may not understand choices, but choices must be taken into account.

-Allen

[ALarson]

ALarson and Tacenda,

You both seem to forget that Zina had a voice in all this. She was not a shrinking violet; she never was. To say that "Brigham married her" without any consideration that she agreed or to say "shame on Joseph & Brigham for doing that to him & Zina" discounts personal choice in all this. Zina had choice; that is the whole point. She chose to be sealed to Joseph after she turned him down multiple times and after she was married to Henry. She chose, after Joseph's death, to be married to Brigham with Henry standing right there as a witness to the ceremony.

We may not understand choices, but choices must be taken into account.

-Allen

Hi Allen,

I agree. And, no I don't disregard the fact that Zina had a voice in this as well. She must have been quite the lady! The whole sequence of events has just always puzzled me. For me, Henry is the person who is difficult to understand. How he could stand by and watch his wife marry 2 men (albeit men he believed to be prophets) while she was currently married to him and having his children is hard to comprehend. He would not be sealed to any of his offspring with her.

I haven't meant to say "shame on Joseph" or "shame of Brigham", I'm just trying to figure it out.

My question just comes down to why Brigham Young agreed to the 2nd marriage (1st being to Joseph) and sealing while she was still married to Henry and he was active in the church. Just because Zina wanted it? He didn't have to agree to it. All of the reasons given for polyandry fly out the window for me at that point and it makes no sense.

I hope you know what I am asking. Why wasn't she just sealed to Henry for time and why didn't Brigham encourage that?

[Calm]

Shame on Joseph & Brigham for doing that to him & Zina.

It was Zina's decision, first to refuse and then to accept....to suggest that she was just some poor victim with no mind of her own is to diminish her and every other woman who proactively made the decision to live plural marriage. Edited February 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

ALarson and Tacenda,

You both seem to forget that Zina had a voice in all this. She was not a shrinking violet; she never was. To say that "Brigham married her" without any consideration that she agreed or to say "shame on Joseph & Brigham for doing that to him & Zina" discounts personal choice in all this. Zina had choice; that is the whole point. She chose to be sealed to Joseph after she turned him down multiple times and after she was married to Henry. She chose, after Joseph's death, to be married to Brigham with Henry standing right there as a witness to the ceremony.

We may not understand choices, but choices must be taken into account.

-Allen

Could she have just relented to the powers that be? How many times did she say no? Therefore by the time Brigham married her she must have felt that saying no means nothing. That's NOT choice!

[Tacenda]

Hi Allen,

I agree. And, no I don't disregard the fact that Zina had a voice in this as well. She must have been quite the lady! The whole sequence of events has just always puzzled me. For me, Henry is the person who is difficult to understand. How he could stand by and watch his wife marry 2 men (albeit men he believed to be prophets) while she was currently married to him and having his children is hard to comprehend. He would not be sealed to any of his offspring with her.

I haven't meant to say "shame on Joseph" or "shame of Brigham", I'm just trying to figure it out.

My question just comes down to why Brigham Young agreed to the 2nd marriage (1st being to Joseph) and sealing while she was still married to Henry and he was active in the church. Just because Zina wanted it? He didn't have to agree to it. All of the reasons given for polyandry fly out the window for me at that point and it makes no sense.

I hope you know what I am asking. Why wasn't she just sealed to Henry for time and why didn't Brigham encourage that?

It was me who said shame on JS and BY. Remember they were't perfect and could have been acting as men at the time.

[Calm]

For me, Henry is the person who is difficult to understand. How he could stand by and watch his wife marry 2 men (albeit men he believed to be prophets) while she was currently married to him and having his children is hard to comprehend. He would not be sealed to any of his offspring with her.

Which implies he understood the sealing ordinance differently than we do today...as should be obvious from the way it was operated in that time period where people were sealed to leaders rather than their own parents. Did they love their parents any less than we do today? Wanted any less to spend eternity with them? Had any less expectation to do so? Hardly likely in my view so I suspect they saw the sealing as doing something besides 'deciding' who spends eternity with each other.

[Calm]

Could she have just relented to the powers that be? How many times did she say no? Therefore by the time Brigham married her she must have felt that saying no means nothing. That's NOT choice!

Read her story, she does not sound like someone who just got tired of fighting.