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

[Calm]

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..

 

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.

I don't believe canard ever claimed he had proof, just that there was evidence for sexual polyandry that people could draw their own conclusions from.

If a legal marriage is in place and there is evidence of the legal husband living with his legal wife, that seems to me to be evidence for physical intimacy though since there are marriages that are never physically consummated, that is an assumption based on probability.

[frank_jessop]

So here's the question:

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

In my opinion, there is not a scriptural precedent for a woman being in a marriage to two living men.

[mfbukowski]

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

So they were trying to help him? They had a testimony that what he said was God's will when they told the stories?

I think not.

[Calm]

So they were trying to help him? They had a testimony that what he said was God's will when they told the stories?I think not.

Helen Kimball and Lucy Walker were faithful Saints all of their lives, iirc. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your comment.

[BCSpace]

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

 

Don't know. Do you have any evidence of an actual polyandrous relationship?  Doesn't appear to be any in the three accusative cases I'm aware of.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So they were trying to help him? They had a testimony that what he said was God's will when they told the stories?

I think not.

 

Then perhaps you should think again (the fact that you think these statements are anti-Joseph speaks volumes BTW). 

 

In the same source Lucy Walker reports that following Joseph's ultimatum, as morning broke, she “received a powerful and irristable testimony of the truth of the mariage covenant called ‘Celestial or plural mariage’” and “I afterwards married Joseph as a plural wife and lived and cohabitated with him as such.”

Edited May 12, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ALarson]

Don't know. Do you have any evidence of an actual polyandrous relationship?  

IIRC Brigham Young had at least 8 polyandrous marriages.  The most well known one was to Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2014 by ALarson

[SeekingUnderstanding]

IIRC Brigham Young had at least 8 polyandrous marriages.  The most well known one was to Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs.

 

 

 

 

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".

 

For me I really don't get the focus on who was sleeping with who when it comes to polyandry. I mean if its good for the goose its good for the gander right? The much more problematic issue is that men (prophets) used their position and ecclesiastic authority (with both threats and promises) to convince women to leave their husbands and be sealed to them (whether in time or eternity is immaterial to me). This behavior is unexplainable and to my knowledge no defense of it can be made other than "we just don't know / we don't have the facts to judge."  The discussion about who slept with whom is just a distraction from the bigger issue IMO.

[cdowis]

I don't believe canard ever claimed he had proof, just that there was evidence for sexual polyandry that people could draw their own conclusions from.

 

Please read the conversation in the other thread for the context. 

If a legal marriage is in place and there is evidence of the legal husband living with his legal wife, that seems to me to be evidence for physical intimacy though since there are marriages that are never physically consummated, that is an assumption based on probability.

 

Thanks for sharing with  us your opinion.  Again I refer you to the discussion in the other thread for the context.

[Yirgacheffe]

 

 

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.

 

I always think of  flannel gram when I hear this story.   "Ooooh flannel gram"

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

 

Are you sealed to your neighbor's wife?

Yes I am, My neighbors wife is my brothers wife. So there.

[thesometimesaint]

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?

 

Are you sealed to your neighbor's wife?

 

Agency my friend.

 

Eventually yes, but not in this life. We will be all Sealed together as the children of Adam and Eve.

[juliann]

Nice summary, Canard. The most disturbing thing about this need to show Joseph's character by proving women didn't get too much sex is that Joseph's character will be destroyed the minute something comes up that proves women were having too much sex.  Now we have the really bizarre stuff coming from Meg Stout, who lacking any evidence whatsoever claims God is telling her Eliza Snow was fornicating with Bennett rather than Joseph.  So it is ultimately question begging because it presumes that men who are having extra marital sex (as seen legally) are only dishonorable if women are having extra marital sex. 

 

We all know the Saints considered these marriages not "sealings."  We call them marriages. Marriage has a very specific meaning.  So this is yet another example of the tendency to redefine words when they aren't convenient.  (We do this with "preside" in the PotF because it can't co-exist with "equal" under any known definition.)

 

D&C 132 has a verse explaining under what conditions a woman can be with another man.  I have yet to see this taken into consideration by the 'women didn't have sex' school of thought. It is always just brushed away with a wave of the hand. So polyandry is scriptural.  What is most shocking is making the women who thought Joseph fathered their children into liars.  All DNA tests do is prove paternity...not the obvious fact that these women would be the only ones who knew that it was a possibility Joseph was the father.   But perhaps the biggest eye roller that gets right down to the bias behind all of this is that when nothing else works, it suddenly becomes a rule that women have to be living with both men in the same household for it to be polyandry...or that they have to have had sex with both on a deadline. Not once have I seen polygyny ruled invalid because a wife lived in another state or the husband wasn't having concurrent sex with wives as he traveled to see them once or twice a year.

 

So the long and short of it is, until those doing the research can put aside their own aversion to women doing what the men were doing, they will always support their own aversion.  

[halconero]

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

A lot of the stuff on this board doesn't have any importance, but it's a forum to talk about issues relating to Mormonism....so....

[juliann]

Agency my friend.

 

Eventually yes, but not in this life. We will be all Sealed together as the children of Adam and Eve.

Are you saying there will be no husband/ wife sealings?  Because this was the question....

 

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?

 

[mfbukowski]

Helen Kimball and Lucy Walker were faithful Saints all of their lives, iirc. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your comment.

Definite misunderstanding. I don't follow this historical National Enquirer stuff because it makes no difference to me.

But that just proves my original point then, that they were convinced that there was nothing wrong going on and it was consensual. It is not up to us to judge the motives of people who lived 150 years ago.

[mfbukowski]

Then perhaps you should think again (the fact that you think these statements are anti-Joseph speaks volumes BTW). 

 

In the same source Lucy Walker reports that following Joseph's ultimatum, as morning broke, she “received a powerful and irristable testimony of the truth of the mariage covenant called ‘Celestial or plural mariage’” and “I afterwards married Joseph as a plural wife and lived and cohabitated with him as such.”

Good for her! So what? It was consensual and it is none of our business.

Are you in favor of gay marriage? I should hope not, if you are against consensual relationships. I was judging the comments by the usual anti-mormon stuff you always see here.

[mfbukowski]

A lot of the stuff on this board doesn't have any importance, but it's a forum to talk about issues relating to Mormonism....so....

Fair enough then.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Good for her! So what? It was consensual and it is none of our business.

Are you in favor of gay marriage? I should hope not, if you are against consensual relationships. I was judging the comments by the usual anti-mormon stuff you always see here.

So on the one hand, the statements reveal ecclesiastical abuse, represent the usual anti-mormon stuff here and must be anti-Joseph, but on the other hand its all just consensual stuff on none of our business?

 

If you read my posts, you would know that I couldn't care less who is sleeping with whom.

 

If the prophet came and asked for my wife, promised me eternal salvation if I gave her up, and said I'd be damned if I didn't, I would have serious issues with that. More power to everyone else that has no problems with this type of behavior.

[omni]

Good for her! So what? It was consensual and it is none of our business.

 

 

Would this response have worked for you while conducting Bishop worthiness interviews?

[juliann]

Definite misunderstanding. I don't follow this historical National Enquirer stuff because it makes no difference to me.

But that just proves my original point then, that they were convinced that there was nothing wrong going on and it was consensual. It is not up to us to judge the motives of people who lived 150 years ago.

But far too many think it is up to them to guess where, how, and with whom women spent their nights, so they can determine who is honorable.  Kind of creepy.

[juliann]

Would this response have worked for you while conducting Bishop worthiness interviews?

Would quizzing married people about their sexual activities work for you? These people considered themselves married.

[BCSpace]

For me I really don't get the focus on who was sleeping with who when it comes to polyandry. I mean if its good for the goose its good for the gander right? The much more problematic issue is that men (prophets) used their position and ecclesiastic authority (with both threats and promises) to convince women to leave their husbands and be sealed to them (whether in time or eternity is immaterial to me). This behavior is unexplainable and to my knowledge no defense of it can be made other than "we just don't know / we don't have the facts to judge."  The discussion about who slept with whom is just a distraction from the bigger issue IMO.

 

You're on the right track.  The better explaination though, imho, is to point out that all the critics have in these cases is the speculation "something MUST have happened".

Edited May 12, 2014 by BCSpace

[sdc999]

Good for her! So what? It was consensual and it is none of our business.

Are you in favor of gay marriage? I should hope not, if you are against consensual relationships. I was judging the comments by the usual anti-mormon stuff you always see here.

You make a great point mfbukowski.  This, then, indicates that you are in favor of gay marriage since you are in favor of consensual relationships.  

[BCSpace]

IIRC Brigham Young had at least 8 polyandrous marriages.  The most well known one was to Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs.

 

 

I'm comfortable with the faithful explanations for this case and note, for example, that there are several instances where a 'frontier divorce' could easily have taken place.  Hales concludes there is no evidence for sexual polyandry in this case and I concur.

Edited May 12, 2014 by BCSpace