Wrestling With Polyandry

[why me]

I have never understood why this is such a big deal.

I think that the critics make it a big deal and when they do, they influence the thoughts and feelings of the seeking members. Critics tend to look from the outside in on this one and not from inside out. And so, they go with the cheating spouse line. And then, they can judge rather harshly and use convincing sentences to have the seeking member feel cheated that joseph could have done this.

[tagriffy]

I think that the critics make it a big deal and when they do, they influence the thoughts and feelings of the seeking members. Critics tend to look from the outside in on this one and not from inside out. And so, they go with the cheating spouse line. And then, they can judge rather harshly and use convincing sentences to have the seeking member feel cheated that joseph could have done this.

My question is why this would even be an effective line of argument. If one accepts polygamy in principle, what is the big deal about polyandry?

[mfbukowski]

I think that the critics make it a big deal and when they do, they influence the thoughts and feelings of the seeking members. Critics tend to look from the outside in on this one and not from inside out. And so, they go with the cheating spouse line. And then, they can judge rather harshly and use convincing sentences to have the seeking member feel cheated that joseph could have done this.

But they don"t seem to think it through?

Sterling McMurrin said "I am not disillusioned because I have never been illusioned".

I personally think that nothing sexual happened- but on the other hand I know human nature well. But the bottom line for me is that even in a worst case scenario, my testimony would not be harmed. Joseph after all, was human even if we sometimes want to make him into a superman.

[mfbukowski]

My question is why this would even be an effective line of argument. If one accepts polygamy in principle, what is the big deal about polyandry?

Polygamy was practiced with women who were not previously married to others, whereas that was not the case with polyandry. The interpretation of the critics is that it was essentially "wife-swapping" with Joseph abusing his authority for sexual purposes and essentially sleeping with anyone he wanted to, married or not, in some cases even young girls.

[Rivers]

Mormonstories podcast with Grant Palmer, he talks about it being William Law that Emma asked for. But it's probably hearsay, I don't have a reference.

In Brian Hales' Mormon Stories interview, he said that it may have been a divorce that Emma was offered. . .IIRC.

For me, polyandry(sexual or not) doesn't seem much worse than polygamy in general. The thing that I find most troublesome about Joseph's polygamy is the deception and the sneaking behind Emma's back.

I find Hales' arguments against sexual polyandry fairly convincing but I wouldn't be terribly devastated by contrary evidence.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Rivers

[tagriffy]

Polygamy was practiced with women who were not previously married to others, whereas that was not the case with polyandry. The interpretation of the critics is that it was essentially "wife-swapping" with Joseph abusing his authority for sexual purposes and essentially sleeping with anyone he wanted to, married or not, in some cases even young girls.

OK, I can grant that a legitimate argument could be made on those grounds (one thinks of Sarah Pratt in this connection). On the more general level, the impression I get is that Joseph was "stealing other men's wives." That kind of argument strikes me as being as sexist as D&C 132 itself.

[TruthSeeker2013]

To me, the more difficult polygamy issue is not the possible sexual nature of it, it's the fact that Joseph hid it from Emma. I struggle much more with that aspect of it.

[tagriffy]

For me, polyandry(sexual or nor) doesn't seem much worse than polygamy in general. The thing that I find most troublesome about Joseph's polygamy is the deception and the sneaking behind Emma's back.

That's pretty much the way I feel. Sometimes, I think the secrecy was more about Joseph fear of Emma than it was about his fear of public reaction.

I find Hales' arguments against sexual polyandry fairly convincing but I wouldn't be terribly devastated by contrary evidence.

Again, setting aside any clearly iniquitous cases, it wouldn't be devastating to me either. My question would still be what the big deal is about.

[EllenMaksoud]

Hi All,

Most of you are aware of Brian Hales's new books on Joseph Smith and polygamy.

Brian documents Joseph Smith's polygamy in some detail, including Joseph's several sealings to women legally married to other men. Brian marshals evidence that these marriages, while "ceremonially polyandrous," were not sexually polyandrous: a wife was not having sexual relations with more than one husband during the same time period. In other words, she effectively went from being one man's wife to being another man's wife, rather than having two true husbands at the same time.

Brian finds none of the evidence for sexual polyandry incontrovertible or persuasive, and presents evidence against it (e.g., D&C 132's apparent condemnation of multiple husbands).

Not everyone is convinced by his arguments, and this is perhaps the primary basis on which some have dismissed him as an apologist.

As Brian's primary researcher and good friend, I helped craft some of the arguments he presents on this subject, and I think the case he can present on this is quite substantive.

But given that not everyone is persuaded by these arguments, and given that we never know what could pop up in further sources, I wonder how other believing Latter-day Saints might react if they became convinced some of Joseph's marriages were sexually polyandrous.

Suppose hypothetically that a source were to turn up which established Joseph's participation in sexual polyandry beyond doubt (and, by the way, while I have materials not in Brian's books, I am aware of no such source). What would you make of it?

One could lose faith over it.

Or one could believe it justified because, as Joseph once wrote, "whatever the Lord requires is right"?

Or one could theologize it--e.g., understanding polyandry as not necessarily evil, just as polygyny isn't, and might perhaps exist in the celestial kingdom.

Or one could explain it based on the needs of the time--that it served some temporary function in the 1840s that was no longer needed later and won't be needed after this life either.

Or...what? I'm sure this doesn't exhaust the options

I guess what I'm asking is, what would you see as the live options for dealing with sexual polyandry?

Thoughts?

Don

I think I am just sad that so many people have not had significant spiritual experiences to reinforce their faith enough so that some of the messy things in the past of Mormonisim become relatively unimportant. My early experiences were so profound as to cause me to over look those things.

[Questing Beast]

Hi All,

...

I guess what I'm asking is, what would you see as the live options for dealing with sexual polyandry?

Thoughts?

Don

This was the "deal breaker" for my pursuit of a testimony in the LDS faith, and Christianity by default. I got no further than the introduction of Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness", and I was already convinced by that concise overview of Joseph Smith's sexuality. Even one woman would be enough to invalidate JS as a "prophet" in the biblical sense, or the BoM sense by association. You either disbelieve the women who swore affidavits or you believe JS who lied in public about the reality of plural marriage.

I'm confident that Oliver Cowdery was not excommunicated over believing a mere rumor vis-a-vis Fanny Alger.

Josephine Lyon was named after the prophet, and of course we have her word that her mother Sylvia Sessions Lyon Smith had named her that because she was the daughter of JS. The apology for this fact is that Sylvia was not cohabiting with her legal husband, Windsor Lyon, he being at that time "out of favor with the church". It doesn't matter if final proof of Josephine makes her out to be Windsor's daughter and not JS's. Sylvia Sessions, on her deathbed, was reporting/confessing the truth as she understood it: at the time of her conceiving Josephine she was having sex with JS. That she would excuse this by asserting that Windsor was "out of favor" and therefore not a "legal" husband at the time, only points to the fact of sexual polyandry with both men at approximately the same time.

One is enough. And I am sure there are several/many more polyandrous wives who were in and out of both beds within weeks or days or even hours of each other, possibly with the excuse that the legal husband was not the real husband anymore....

[Questing Beast]

I vaguely remember a reference (was it Mormon Enigma?) that at one point Joseph was willing to allow Emma to marry polyandrously to assuage her feelings. Is my memory correct? If so, has somebody done any further work in the area?

The passages in Section 132, addressing a woman and a "vow", etc., are utterly without rational definition unless women (Emma directly) were offered the same as men, i.e. polyandry worked both ways. Emma of course had nothing to do with it and destroyed the copy of the revelation that was brought to her by Hyrum....

[Questing Beast]

My question is why this would even be an effective line of argument. If one accepts polygamy in principle, what is the big deal about polyandry?

As it was not an "anti" argument that broached the topic of polyandry for me, but rather a seeking member trying to wrap his mind around the historical implications in Nauvoo, and the effects of it on the religious paradigm, there was no "argument" against JS being advocated for. I came up with the "deal breaker" on my own.

The reason why polyandry is a big deal to me is because a lifetime of being TBM, or trying my best to be so, and living accordingly (which I still do), resulted in no diminution of my questioning of Christianity in the first place. I encountered the definitive title overarching all of it, "Judeo-Christianity", and later still, the "Abrahamic religions", which of course goes right back to Abraham and the break in "the family" over inheritance rights, the "birthright blessing" and all of that, between Ishmael and Issac, which of course was centered on wives and concubines. What a mess. To have THAT rear its ugly head in "the dispensation of the fullness of times" smacks of the greatest irony to me. But I was willing to allow that polygany was indeed part of the CK if "God" said so through prophets. It did not break biblical sexual morality, and of course polygany is a venerable custom in most of the world. But all the while I was struggling with believing in Christianity I had not the first hint that JS's sexual morality went much farther afield than plurality of wives doctrine. At the time I "discovered" polyandry, I was already ninety percent convinced that all of the world's religions were manmade, but that "God" worked through our creations in all things. JS fell to the level of a mere religion maker like those before him: at best, the fourth of the great, revealed "Abrahamic religions". Individual religion, personal religion, is what counts with "God". The organized, dogmatic ones are good for IDing as masses and getting lots of good works done. They also have the other cutting edge which causes wars of religion, or religious motivation in war, which is an attendant evil.

Bottom line: I don't believe that the afterlife is affected by mortality. Our relationships here are mere coincidence and circumstance and utterly temporary. We are all "soul mates" to "God", or in the process of becoming such. Those relationships are as different as we are to each other....

[CV75]

I guess what I'm asking is, what would you see as the live options for dealing with sexual polyandry?

Pretty much the same as anything else that I think might have been difficult to deal with, that went on before my time (including ploygamy, United Order, Migration west, mass excommunications, legal and financial controversies, etc.):

“That’s weird, but that was then; this is now.”

“Lacking a doctrinal explanation or insight, I have to reserve judgment about it and stick to what I know.”

“In some ways we’re all sealed to each other anyway.”

“I am grateful for what I have in my day and time.”

“Knowing the Lord as I do, I hope I would be able to obey any commandment I do have, and keep any covenant I have made.” This one also applies were these sorts of things were to happen today,

[Senator]

I guess what I'm asking is, what would you see as the live options for dealing with sexual polyandry?

Thoughts?

Accepting the possibility the Joseph got it wrong.

Edited June 1, 2013 by Senator

[Closet Doubter]

I have never understood why this is such a big deal. Let's look at a worst case scenario and assume that Joseph was therefore a fallen prophet at this closing period of his life. How does that negate everything else he did? If Thomas Jefferson was a philanderer, does that diminish the importance or significance of the Declaration of Independence? Did David's final sins destroy the significance of all that went before including the psalms?

I am in complete agreement with this however this is considered an apostate view. Were not allowed to talk about the imperfections of Joseph or any of the other latter day prophets as it is considered "evil speaking of the Lords annointed" but we can discuss and learn from the failings of an old testament prophet and king such as King David. I have no problem with the restoration but I have extreme problems with some of the things Joseph did later in life and I firmly believe these things are the reason the Lord did not allow Joseph to continue leading the church but instead removed him. If the Church would repudiate the "14 points for following the Prophet" speech and quit quoting from it and reiterating points from it in General Conference my respect for church leaders would significantly increase.

[Closet Doubter]

I think that the critics make it a big deal and when they do, they influence the thoughts and feelings of the seeking members. Critics tend to look from the outside in on this one and not from inside out. And so, they go with the cheating spouse line. And then, they can judge rather harshly and use convincing sentences to have the seeking member feel cheated that joseph could have done this.

When a doctrine is practiced that has to be lied about (denials of the doctrine in Nauvoo by Joseph and Apostles that were involved in the practice and also in the mission field in Europe) to members and nonmembers alike it does not come from God. The father of lies is the originator of doctrine that has to be lied about IMHO.

[Tacenda]

When a doctrine is practiced that has to be lied about (denials of the doctrine in Nauvoo by Joseph and Apostles that were involved in the practice and also in the mission field in Europe) to members and nonmembers alike it does not come from God. The father of lies is the originator of doctrine that has to be lied about IMHO.

This is my dilemma, ever since reading "In Sacred Loneliness", it was only a few chapters in that I become obsessed with all things mormon. Now the problem is trying to gain trust of the leaders of the church, or the beginning leaders of the church. The current leaders are awesome men, who are doing the best they can with what is now a problem in the church. I'm trying to remain trusting of the beginnings, where they were true and where they hit a bump.

My husband and I have blow ups, usually when I'm listening to former mormons turned evangelical. There's a program on TV20 called exmormonfiles with Bishop Earl, a former LDS bishop. Well, everytime I watch a show like that (last night), my husband totally starts making fun of them, or saying something derogatory. He'll talk through the whole thing. Then we fight and I think he's got zero respect. Now I believe I'm the one with zero respect for him, I shouldn't watch with him in the room. He does have issues with the church but still holds onto some belief, like the belief that the church needed to be restored and have prophets/apostles lead it. So now I'm thinking okay maybe he's right, and it's like I can't seem to rest on that or not. It's terribly difficult when the trust isn't there. My feelings on JS polyandry is that it never should have come to be. I keep thinking It was against God's teachings, for one thing it appears to be adultery. One of the ten commandments is adultery and even if you look upon another woman/man with lust in your heart it can be considered adultery.

What is the fruit of polygamy/polyandry? Is it good fruit? Not in my opinion, my big fallout was seeing the fruit of it in the FLDS church. And now the fruit of people wavering in their testimony of the church because of it. I believe that it only means one can't rely on a church but on a relationship. Church is good, I know we need a congregation of same believers and it's good to have support and be able to serve one another. But shouldn't we realise that religion can be man made? And that will enable one to skip an allegience to manmade and go to the source, Him. Dunno...... Btw, CD this isn't all directed to you, just using your post to jump off of and I hear ya on what you said!

[Calm]

exmormonfiles with Bishop Earl, a former LDS bishop

I hope you realize a title like this is extremely disrespectful, both in the reference to a scifi show as if the LDS faith is fictional and for the use of the title "Bishop" by someone claiming to be an apostate. That your husband has a significant negative reaction to it should be hardly surprising, though I can't comment on the actual appropriateness of what he says.

[Calm]

the fruit of it in the FLDS church.

Is that the fruit of plural marriage or the fruit of refusing to believe in the continuing revelation received by the prophets?

[Deborah]

When a doctrine is practiced that has to be lied about ....

And then there is Christ's definition of a liar in John 2:22 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."

And then of course you have consider Abraham lying to Pharoah about his "wife" and Germans lying to soldiers about Jews in the attic. There is lying to decieve and to bring harm and then there is "lying" to save lives and move forward.

[Calm]

believe that it only means one can't rely on a church but on a relationship. Church is good, I know we need a congregation of same believers and it's good to have support and be able to serve one another. But shouldn't we realise that religion can be man made? And that will enable one to skip an allegience to manmade and go to the source, Him.

I believe that is the reason why God has set things up in the world as he has. If there was someone out there with all the answers or had lived the life we all should be living, why would we seek the Lord for help? Instead he has prophets and others tell us enough to set us on the path and the rest is between us and him.

[Tacenda]

I hope you realize a title like this is extremely disrespectful, both in the reference to a scifi show as if the LDS faith is fictional and for the use of the title "Bishop" by someone claiming to be an apostate. That your husband has a significant negative reaction to it should be hardly surprising, though I can't comment on the actual appropriateness of what he says.

I guess I've become so on the fringe of mormonism I hadn't noticed. Thanks for pointing that out. Sometimes it get so hard, I could shoot myself, literally. I wish I'd either never been born LDS, or never been born at all. Sorry for the derail Mods, I'm not going to post anymore on this, it's too close to my heart. And Don, I apologise for even contributing. No I'm not trying to have my own pity party here, though it sounds like it. Edited June 1, 2013 by Tacenda

[Deborah]

Not in my opinion, my big fallout was seeing the fruit of it in the FLDS church.

And looking at the FLDS and thinking that was what early plural marriage was like is a big mistake. I think that is one reason the prophet was authorized to stop plural marriage as we went into the 20th century, aside of course from protecting the church and it's property and being able to move into the world to carry out the Lord's work. The Lord knew how his Law would be twisted.

Furthermore I think we are too limited in our perception of what sealing is and what it means in eternity. It is the means to expand not to limit. Why on earth would we be concerned about petty jealousies when we have the power of creation and expansion into the universe.

[Calm]

When a doctrine is practiced that has to be lied about (denials of the doctrine in Nauvoo by Joseph and Apostles that were involved in the practice and also in the mission field in Europe) to members and nonmembers alike it does not come from God.

I am not sure that it had to be lied about, perhaps this is the error of those called to perform it and because of their shame, the burden was made more difficult.

JS and others would hardly be the first prophets and followers of God who were afraid to fully follow his Will...and at times God altered his commandments because of it (and even in the case of Moses and the Israelites, how the Church was to be structured at that time into something different than they might have had).

[Deborah]

I guess what I'm asking is, what would you see as the live options for dealing with sexual polyandry?

Since we don't have any real evidence this was practiced I would give the benefit of the doubt. And even if for example Ugo Perez should find some of Joseph Smith's progenitors from one of those wives, how does that negate everything else we have. Joseph Smith was very human. But one thing was certain, he loved the Lord and was loyal to him and at the end of his life could say with calmness “I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men." Whatever mistakes he may have made he certainly repented of them.