Was Polyandry Really Polyandry? And Does It Have Scriptural Precedent?

[canard78]

On another thread, cdowis, in his inimitable style, called for a CFR for Joseph Smith's Polyandry, specifically that he had intimate relations with three married women. I had briefly referenced Brian Hales.

 

I'll answer this CFR in more detail in my second post. For starters, here's a reference to Joseph's polyandry on LDS.org (search results linking to josephsmithpapers.org):

 

Several later documents suggest that several women who were already married to other men were, like Marinda Hyde, married or sealed to Joseph Smith. Available evidence indicates that some of these apparent polygynous/polyandrous marriages took place during the years covered by this journal. At least three of the women reportedly involved in these marriages—Patty Bartlett Sessions, Ruth Vose Sayers, and Sylvia Porter Lyon—are mentioned in the journal, though in contexts very much removed from plural marriage. Even fewer sources are extant for these complex relationships than are available for Smith’s marriages to unmarried women, and Smith’s revelations are silent on them. Having surveyed the available sources, historian Richard L. Bushman concludes that these polyandrous marriages—and perhaps other plural marriages of Joseph Smith—were primarily a means of binding other families to his for the spiritual benefit and mutual salvation of all involved.

(emphasis added)

 

As such I'm a little surprised by cdowis' suggesting I'm "peddling nonsense" when I'm basing my conclusions of Joseph being in polyandrous relationships on the work of Brian Hales, Richard Bushman and josephsmithpapers.org. Perhaps his specific concern was my suggestion that Joseph appeared to have had intimate relations with three of his polyandrous wives (while they were legally married to another living man). As mentioned, I'll answer that in a second post.

 

What also interests me is whether this practice has scriptural precedent. In the same thread, 'lvjd66' referenced Ruth as a scriptural precedent for polyandry.That seems an odd example, given her first husband was dead before she even met Boaz. As such, I've asked him whether he still claims polyandry has scriptural precedent. At his request I've moved the question out of his SSM thread.

 

In a different thread, stargazer said (in reference to Helen Marr Kimball's marriage 'for life only' to Horrace K. Whitney while being sealed to Joseph):

 

This actually corresponds very neatly with the ancient practice of Levirate marriage.  This is where a woman whose first husband had not given her a child would be married to a close relative of her husband, and the resulting child would be the heir of the first husband, not the second.

 

I'm not actually sure this does justify polyandry but would be interested in more information to consider it.

 

So here's the question:

 

Based on your understanding and conclusions about Joseph's polyandry, is there scriptural precedent?

 

If not (and this isn't a 'sola scriptura' argument), is this practice instead an unprecedented revelation to Joseph, rather than a (short lived) restoration of old doctrines? As President Uchtdorf said, "the Restoration is an ongoing process we are living in it right now. It includes “all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal,” and the “many great and important things” that “He will yet reveal.”

 

Does the ongoing restoration always need precedent or could there be things we are taught as part of God's ongoing revelations that have no precedent at all?

Edited May 12, 2014 by canard78

[canard78]

Second post, to answer cdowis' CFR in more detail.

 

First, for clarity, Brian Hales would probably appreciate me making the following clear:

 

 

I'm not going to reproduce the entire article, but this 2012 lecture is worth reading.

 

Brian Hales does not believe Joseph practiced sexual polyandry. Given he appears to be in a minority of one in that list, it's probably best to give his conclusions closest attention. I have read his evidence and reach a different conclusion.

 

Hales is able to find evidence for Joseph being intimate with three women who could be defined as polyandrous, but in Hales' opinion were not.

 

Sylvia Sessions Lyon... married Windsor Lyon on April 21, 1838 in a legal ceremony performed by Joseph Smith... Windsor was excommunicated in November of 1842. We have three evidences that the sealing (to Joseph) occurred after this, and that the excommunication of Windsor cause him and Sylvia to part. They were already separated. So they are legally married but they separate.

 

 

At the time of their separation they already had 3 children. After the separation, another daughter, Josephine, is born. Hales says:

 

The daughter was conceived... a year later, on May 18 1843. And this daughter I believe is Joseph Smith’s actual daughter.

 

 

Hales says that given there's no evidence for Sylvia being sexually active with both Windsor and Joseph within a close or overlapping time period, that this can't considered polyandry. She was legally married to Windsor and spiritually sealed to Joseph. She was sexually active with both... but not while Windsor was living with her. Her marriage to Windsor remained legally valid and, after Joseph's death, "Windsor is rebaptized and then they come back together and the legal marriage is still intact."

 

I agree with Hales' conclusion that this is weird. I disagree with his conclusion that it is not a form of polyandry. She is legally married to one person and spiritually sealed to another. She, according to Hales, has children with both while being legally or spiritually married/sealed to both. Both are living at the time of these ceremonies. I'm reminded of the ongoing Friends debate... "we were on a break!"

 

His second example, Mary Heron, is even more of a stretch in my view.

 

First, he concludes that Joseph E. Johnson's evidence that Mary and Joseph were sexually active is valid (that's going to get some surprised google search results!!). He also mentions that Mary's legal husband (John Snider) was often away (such as his mission to England from 1842 to 1843). I agree with him that there is insufficient evidence to accuse Joseph of sending John off to the front lines to get him out of the way. There is however evidence that Joseph was intimate with Mary while she was legally married to John. Mary and John were never separated. They continued to live together when John was not away travelling. They had no more children after 1833 (possibly due to Mary becoming infertile) but there's no evidence that their relationship became platonic. After her death John remarried and had more children.

 

Brian's suggests that:

 

...if... a plural sealing did occur, causing the legal marriage to be done away – the civil husband thereafter serving as some kind of a front husband for Joseph Smith – then the relationship is a consecutive marriage.

 

 

Again, I don't agree that this can be defined as a consecutive marriage, given Mary and John were always legally married and continued to be after John's death.

 

Hales gives a third example of Sarah Ann Whitney who he "married" (Hales' words) for time and eternity in July 1842. Hales reaches the conclusion that they were "possibly" intimate. Nine months later he asked Joseph C. Kingsbury to marry her legally.

 

The other 11 women who had legal husbands are referenced only briefly in the presentation. Here's his summary:

 

 

So, cdowis... you can reach your own conclusion too, just as Hales does. Personally, having reviewed the evidence I see these as polyandrous. The josephsmithpapers editors apparently do too.

[Mystery Meat]

Here is my one and only response to this thread as I couldn't care less about the topic.

 

Ruth had two husbands in mortality, although at separate times. This is polyandry. In the next life which one will she be with? Both? The first? The second? Will she get to choose? Men sealed to more than one wife are called eternal polygamists. Why would Ruth not be an eternal polyandrist?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Here is my one and only response to this thread as I couldn't care less about the topic.

 

Ruth had two husbands in mortality, although at separate times. This is polyandry. In the next life which one will she be with? Both? The first? The second? Will she get to choose? Men sealed to more than one wife are called eternal polygamists. Why would Ruth not be an eternal polyandrist?

Consenting polygamy and polyandry is hard to get worked up about. I have no problem with eternal polyandry either, though it is a pretty heretical position for a Mormon (I'm a heretic, so I don't mind). Even sexual polyandry doesn't bother me.

What gets me worked up about early polygamy polyandry is two things. One would be an ecclesiastical leader approaching a married couple and claiming one of the spouses (either for time or eternity - in fact an eternity sealing sounds far worse to me). The other is just the shear number of wives that early leaders had, and how the number of wives went up with church position. Also taught along with this was that an increased in the number of sealings went along with a greater eternal reward. It is difficult for me to make sense of this especially as it doesn't jibe with the two main reasons given for polygamy (restoration of all things and to raise up seed).

Edited May 12, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[omni]

For those that do not believe Joseph's polyandrous relationships were sexual, are you then okay with him taking another man's one and only wife so that Joseph can have 33 wives in the eternities? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

For those that do not believe Joseph's polyandrous relationships were sexual, are you then okay with him taking another man's one and only wife so that Joseph can have 33 wives in the eternities?

There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.

Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.

Edited May 12, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[mfbukowski]

Consenting adults are consenting adults.

 

The same folks who want the church to recognize ssm get upset about polyandry.

 

Go figure.

 

I say who cares?

[mfbukowski]

For those that do not believe Joseph's polyandrous relationships were sexual, are you then okay with him taking another man's one and only wife so that Joseph can have 33 wives in the eternities? 

And of course they were sealed at gunpoint, right?

 

I don't think the sealing would work if it was not righteous.  So the bottom line is who cares?

 

I don't care what others believe, I have enough problems figuring out what I believe.

[mfbukowski]

Canard, my buddy, please tell me why this has any importance today?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

And of course they were sealed at gunpoint, right?

For a believer, there are things worse than death. Being a martyr can be honorable and expected for some of Christ's followers. When Lucy Walker rebuffed Joseph replied: "It is a command of God to you. I will give you until tomorrow to decide this matter. If you reject this message the gate will be closed forever against you."

 

When Joseph proposed to Helen Kimball, she wrote the following: 

 

‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.[‘] This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. None but God & his angels could see my mother’s bleeding heart-when Joseph asked her if she was willing, she replied "If Helen is willing I have nothing more to say." She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older & who better understood the step they were taking, & to see her child, who had scarcely seen her fifteenth summer, following in the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come...; but it was all hidden from me.

 

So both an eternal carrot and stick were apparently used. For a believer, these are far more powerful in terms of persuasion than threat of violence. Not to minimize the choice of the women involved, but I would not describe union's formed in this manner to be "consensual" especially given the reluctance both women expressed.

Edited May 12, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[thesometimesaint]

For those that do not believe Joseph's polyandrous relationships were sexual, are you then okay with him taking another man's one and only wife so that Joseph can have 33 wives in the eternities? 

 

Will God force you to be married to someone you don't want to be married to?

[canard78]

Canard, my buddy, please tell me why this has any importance today?

Tangent from another thread/answering a CFR that was requested to be kept out of the thread.

Do you mean today as in Monday?

Or today as in the 21stC?

[Tacenda]

Consenting adults are consenting adults.

 

The same folks who want the church to recognize ssm get upset about polyandry.

 

Go figure.

 

I say who cares?

No, some just say it's just a different form of marriage.  Not in the bible, just as some are saying SSM isn't in the bible.  The bible is manmade mostly anyway, maybe God wants us to have a relationship with Him, more than with the bible.  He might just get sick and tired of people listening to it more than Himself.  Sure it leads to God in so many ways but don't rely on it to do all the work.  Get some direction from that moral compass that God put in each of us, maybe some were born w/o it and it is a freak of nature, don't know. ETA:  At least SSM people aren't threatened to live it by a drawn sword.  That would surely be Satan's way wouldn't it?  Didn't I just read on this board, that Jesus came to atone for the sins of the world because of that moral agency?  I think in Social about defending that Satan isn't the HG.      

Edited May 12, 2014 by Tacenda

[omni]

And of course they were sealed at gunpoint, right?

 

 

 

 

 

I might not have been at gun point, but you could make a good case that manipulation was involved.  Joseph told some of the women who rebuffed his advances that he would be destroyed by an angel with a flaming sword if they did not accept his proposal.  He promised others that the marriage would "ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father's household".  Pretty hard to turn down a man you believe to be God's only living prophet when he tells you that.

 

 

So the bottom line is who cares?

 

 

Quite a few of us actually.

[canard78]

Here is my one and only response to this thread as I couldn't care less about the topic.

Ruth had two husbands in mortality, although at separate times. This is polyandry. In the next life which one will she be with? Both? The first? The second? Will she get to choose? Men sealed to more than one wife are called eternal polygamists. Why would Ruth not be an eternal polyandrist?

There's probably no point me replying to your reply if you are not making any further comments...

But I'm surprised you're still trying to use Ruth as a precedent. It has no comparability whatsoever.

[omni]

Will God force you to be married to someone you don't want to be married to?

 

I certainly don't believe so, but according to Joseph, apparently they will.  Many of the women Joesph originally proposed to turned him down until he brought out up the angel with a flaming sword, or promised them eternal salvation.  Whether these women eventually agreed to the marriage doesn't negate the fact of what Joseph did, according to church doctrine these women are now sealed to Joseph instead of to their husbands. 

[cdowis]

A chart is not proof, especially when you include such fine, outstanding scholars as Fawn Browdie to the list.

 

"I believe/think//speculate" (your quote from Hales) is not proof.  Hale's statement is not proof, despite your desperate attempt to enter it as evidence.  If you claim that a temporal marriage and "spiritual" marriage is polyandry, then we have nothing to discuss on that point.  But I have pointed out YOU have the burden of proof to prove sexual intimacy.

 

 

 

 

 

So, cdowis... you can reach your own conclusion too, just as Hales does. Personally, having reviewed the evidence I see these as polyandrous. The josephsmithpapers editors apparently do too.

 

You have clearly failed the burden of proof.  You trot out charts and speculative ("I think") statements and conclusions of others based on speculative evidence.  If you are going to cite the conclusion of the josephsmithpapers researchers, please give us the exact statement and the basis of their conclusion.  A statement that there was both a spiritual and a temporal marriage is irrelevant to the issue of sexual intimacy.

 

We ALL agree that JS was sealed to women who were temporally married, but the issue here is physical intimacy, so stop obfuscating the issue.

Edited May 12, 2014 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

I certainly don't believe so, but according to Joseph, apparently they will.  Many of the women Joesph originally proposed to turned him down until he brought out up the angel with a flaming sword, or promised them eternal salvation.  Whether these women eventually agreed to the marriage doesn't negate the fact of what Joseph did, according to church doctrine these women are now sealed to Joseph instead of to their husbands. 

 

Nope. It is all voluntary in the eternities. In LDS Scripture neither is the woman without the man nor the man with out the woman in the Lord. But the choice of whom is up to us.

 

BTW. Everyone will be Sealed to each other in the eternities. Though not necessarily married to each other. IE; My children are Sealed to me. I'm not married to them. 

[mfbukowski]

For a believer, there are things worse than death. Being a martyr can be honorable and expected for some of Christ's followers. When Lucy Walker rebuffed Joseph replied: "It is a command of God to you. I will give you until tomorrow to decide this matter. If you reject this message the gate will be closed forever against you."

 

When Joseph proposed to Helen Kimball, she wrote the following: 

 

 

So both an eternal carrot and stick were apparently used. For a believer, these are far more powerful in terms of persuasion than threat of violence. Not to minimize the choice of the women involved, but I would not describe union's formed in this manner to be "consensual" especially given the reluctance both women expressed.

But the point is, I cannot get into their heads to figure out if they believed it or not. What they said later about it is suspect- everyone was out to get Joseph.

If someone told me that I would laugh in his face, and my wife would have probably slapped him, as well as all my daughters. If he took advantage of his position- God will judge him, but I have no idea what "really happened" and neither does anyone else.

[mfbukowski]

Tangent from another thread/answering a CFR that was requested to be kept out of the thread.

Do you mean today as in Monday?

Or today as in the 21stC?

Both-

But I'll settle for the latter. If it's just a CFR I get it.

[mfbukowski]

If someone told me that I would laugh in his face, and my wife would have probably slapped him, as well as all my daughters.

Before someone asks, no, she would not have slapped our daughters because someone would have said this!

[omni]

Nope. It is all voluntary in the eternities. In LDS Scripture neither is the woman without the man nor the man with out the woman in the Lord. But the choice of whom is up to us.

 

 

 

So are you claiming that if Henry Jacobs wanted (which by all indications he did) to be married/sealed to Zina in the eternities, he will be even though Joseph is sealed to her?   I know what your saying is more comforting and frankly makes more sense, but that doesn't mean it's doctrine.  I see no where in D&C 132 where it allows for this interpretation.  Do you have any scriptural support for your claim?

 

BTW. Everyone will be Sealed to each other in the eternities. Though not necessarily married to each other. IE; My children are Sealed to me. I'm not married to them.

 

 

Are you sealed to your neighbor's wife?

[BCSpace]

As such I'm a little surprised by cdowis' suggesting I'm "peddling nonsense" when I'm basing my conclusions of Joseph being in polyandrous relationships on the work of Brian Hales, Richard Bushman and josephsmithpapers.org.

 

 

Hales actually rejects the notion of JS's teachings allowing sexual polyandry and rejects the notion that any of his marriages included sexual polyandry:

 

http://mormonstories.org/brian-hales-12-myths-regarding-joseph-smiths-polygamy/

 

Myths according to Hales:

 

   1. Joseph Smith had a reputation as a womanizer.

    2. The Joseph Smith – Fanny Alger relationship was not a plural marriage.

    3. Joseph Smith’s polygamy was all about sex, in other words, “multiply and replenish the earth.”

    4. Joseph Smith had no children by his plural wives.

    5. Joseph Smith had sexual relations with 14 year olds.

    6. John C. Bennett was a polygamy insider in Nauvoo.

    7. None of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages were non-sexual “eternity-only” sealings.

    8. Joseph Smith’s teachings allow sexual polyandry.

    9. Some of Joseph Smith’s marriages included sexual polyandry.

    10. Joseph sent men on missions so he could be sealed to their wives.

    11. Joseph Smith threatened to destroy the reputation of any woman that turned him down.

    12. Emma Smith never supported plural marriage.

 

 

He certainly does give the evidence/reasons why some might believe otherwise, but also gives other evidence and better reasoning as to why sexual polyandry is not the case.

 

The best case for polyandry is more along the lines of legalistic wrangling and an accusation that "something MUST have happened".

Edited May 12, 2014 by BCSpace

[SeekingUnderstanding]

But the point is, I cannot get into their heads to figure out if they believed it or not. What they said later about it is suspect- everyone was out to get Joseph.

Neither of these women were detractors when they wrote what they said. They were certainly not out to get Joseph at the time.

[ALarson]

Hales actually rejects the notion of JS's teachings allowing sexual polyandry and rejects the notion that any of his marriages included sexual polyandry:

 

http://mormonstories.org/brian-hales-12-myths-regarding-joseph-smiths-polygamy/

 

Myths according to Hales:

 

   1. Joseph Smith had a reputation as a womanizer.

    2. The Joseph Smith – Fanny Alger relationship was not a plural marriage.

    3. Joseph Smith’s polygamy was all about sex, in other words, “multiply and replenish the earth.”

    4. Joseph Smith had no children by his plural wives.

    5. Joseph Smith had sexual relations with 14 year olds.

    6. John C. Bennett was a polygamy insider in Nauvoo.

    7. None of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages were non-sexual “eternity-only” sealings.

    8. Joseph Smith’s teachings allow sexual polyandry.

    9. Some of Joseph Smith’s marriages included sexual polyandry.

    10. Joseph sent men on missions so he could be sealed to their wives.

    11. Joseph Smith threatened to destroy the reputation of any woman that turned him down.

    12. Emma Smith never supported plural marriage.

 

 

He certainly does give the evidence/reasons why some might believe otherwise, but also gives other evidence and better reasoning as to why sexual polyandry is not the case.

 

The best case for polyandry is more along the lines of legalistic wrangling and an accusation that "something MUST have happened".

Do you believe that Brigham Young's polyandrous marriages were sexual?