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

[ALarson]

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.

Are you saying that Brigham Young's polyandrous marriages were not sexual?  Are you aware that Brigham and Zina Huntington Jacobs had a daughter as a result of their polyandrous marriage in 1850.(Zina Prescinda Young)?

[BCSpace]

Are you saying that Brigham Young's polyandrous marriages were not sexual?

 

 

I'm saying there is no evidence for sexual polyandry.

 

Are you aware that Brigham and Zina Huntington Jacobs had a daughter as a result of their polyandrous marriage in 1850.(Zina Prescinda Young)?

 

 

Is there any evidence for a marriage relationship, particularly sexual, with Henry at that time?  The evidence suggests a divorce in 1846.

Edited May 12, 2014 by BCSpace

[mfbukowski]

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.

I would have issues with that as well, but that is not the point. They did not- hypothetically- IF that is what happened. Maybe they were wrong or right to not question it, or to go by their own testimonies.

It's not for me to judge what decisions others make. It is of no importance to me.

The point is that we have no clue what "actually happened" or why others make the decisions they do. It is not up to us to second guess.

 

My question is: why is this all important to me today, in my life?

 

I base my belief in Mormonism on its practical effects in my life, AND my testimony.  These issues have absolutely nothing to do with my testimony.

[mfbukowski]

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

Rephrase the question.  Notice it is now 2014.

 

The church no longer endorses polygamy/whatever, and I am not the prophet.  It would not be the role of a Bishop to question the prophet in his role as prophet.  It becomes an administrative issue.

 

If I was upset with what a prophet does/did, I am free to vote with my feet and join another church or start my own.

[ALarson]

I'm saying there is no evidence for sexual polyandry.

 

 

Is there any evidence for a marriage relationship, particularly sexual, with Henry at that time?  The evidence suggests a divorce in 1846.

CFR that Zina and Henry Jacobs divorced.  I'd really like to see what evidence you have since this case is of interest to me.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Agreed.

 

It is completely "creepy", voyeuristic, speculative, intrusive into dead people's privacy, and just plain weird, if you ask me.

[mfbukowski]

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".

Exactly.

 

It is like the unmarried faithful brothers and sisters in our church who are still virgins, as the Lord would want them to be.  The world cannot fathom the truth that such a thing could even happen.

 

It is just a statement about how debased the world has become that people cannot even understand virtue.  They project their own.... uh.... proclivities... onto others, with no understanding whatsoever about what it is like to live the freedom of following the commandments.

Edited May 12, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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.  

I have no problem with gay marriage in the world, as a libertarian.  People should be free to sin all they want. 

 

What I do not like is the inconsistency of those who advocate consensual relationships as long as it is only their particular type of kinkiness.

[omni]

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

 

Elder Lee considered himself married before he was excommunicated.  However my point was on the "consensual relationship" aspect of his comments.  From the church's viewpoint, you can still receive church discipline whether in a consensual relationship or not. 

[BCSpace]

CFR that Zina and Henry Jacobs divorced.  I'd really like to see what evidence you have since this case is of interest to me.

 

I never claimed a divorce.  I merely said the evidence suggests.  Zina characterized her marriage with Henry as "unhappy and ill-sorted".  For all we know, she could have requested such a separation from BY and BY then came, and we know this, and said he was JS's proxy.  Henry was present at the sealing.  Henry later went on to marry several other women though he later did indeed pine for Zina.  In any of this did Zina claim she was duped or decieved or abused?  No. 

 

This evidence is quite a bit better than the criticism of sexual polyandry which rests merely on the claim that "something MUST have happened".

 

Now since 1846, is there any evidence for a sexual or even marriage relationship with Henry?  This would be of great import since the daughter you presented was born in 1850, years later.

 

The fact remains there is no evidence for sexual polyandry as is the criticism.

Edited May 12, 2014 by BCSpace

[juliann]

I never claimed a divorce.  I merely said the evidence suggests.  Zina characterized her marriage with Henry as "unhappy and ill-sorted".  For all we know, she could have requested such a separation from BY and BY then came, and we know this, and said he was JS's proxy.  Henry was present at the sealing.  Henry later went on to marry several other women though indeed he later did indeed pine for Zina.  In any of this did Zina claim she was duped or decieved or abused?  No. 

 

This evidence is quite a bit better than the criticism of sexual polyandry which rests merely on the claim that "something MUST have happened".

 

 

So now we have unhappy marriages as proof of no sex since we know that all married people are happy...or childless. Zina talked to animals in the forest every afternoon. Maybe she killed someone!  Or maybe she was also sleeping around with Bennett and got pregnant and had an abortion...oh, the possibilities are endless when there isn't a shred of evidence to disprove any goofy guess I can come up with.

 

It is far more likely, however, that she would be engaging in marital relations with her husbands. That is the default presumption because it is the purpose of marriage. The burden of proof is upon those who need to prove otherwise. And they can't. Which is why it is ultimately phrased in words such as "my opinion..."

[changed]

 

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

 

 

 

 Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife.... 

Edited May 12, 2014 by changed

[omni]

I never claimed a divorce. I merely said the evidence suggests. Zina characterized her marriage with Henry as "unhappy and ill-sorted". For all we know, she could have requested such a separation from BY and BY then came, and we know this, and said he was JS's proxy. Henry was present at the sealing. Henry later went on to marry several other women though he later did indeed pine for Zina. In any of this did Zina claim she was duped or decieved or abused? No.

This evidence is quite a bit better than the criticism of sexual polyandry which rests merely on the claim that "something MUST have happened".

Now since 1846, is there any evidence for a sexual or even marriage relationship with Henry? This would be of great import since the daughter you presented was born in 1850, years later.

The fact remains there is no evidence for sexual polyandry as is the criticism.

So basically your argument rests on "something (divorce/separation) MUST have happened."

[BCSpace]

So now we have unhappy marriages as proof of no sex since we know that all married people are happy...or childless. Zina talked to animals in the forest every afternoon. Maybe she killed someone!  Or maybe she was also sleeping around with Bennett and got pregnant and had an abortion...oh, the possibilities are endless when there isn't a shred of evidence to disprove any goofy guess I can come up with.

 

 

In my opinion, if one is familiar with the evidence, one knows that the evidence agaisnt sexual polyandry in this case is quite strong.  The paucity of evidence in the other cases also tilts strongly against polyandry in both JS and BY cases.

 

 

It is far more likely, however, that she would be engaging in marital relations with her husbands. That is the default presumption because it is the purpose of marriage. The burden of proof is upon those who need to prove otherwise. And they can't. Which is why it is ultimately phrased in words such as "my opinion..."

 

No.  The burden of proof is on those who make the criticism.  Those of us who defend the criticism are in the realm of reason by pointing out the differences between the evidence for sexual polyandry and evidence against.  I've presented some good evidence against sexual polyandry.  I eagerly await the evidence for it.

[BCSpace]

So basically your argument rests on "something (divorce/separation) MUST have happened."

 

No.  The argument against polyandry rests on concrete evidence in that direction some of which I have given.  The critical argument for polyandry rests on ignoring the evidence.

Edited May 12, 2014 by BCSpace

[juliann]

No.  The argument against polyandry rests on concrete evidence in that direction some of which I have given.  The critical argument for polyandry rests on ignoring the evidence.

Here is your problem, aside from the fact that it is absurd to insist there were no sexual relations in a marriage to begin with: For your scheme to work you must prove each and every marriage was sexless. Not just some. Even Hales doesn't make the claim that he can guess what happened in all of them. It only takes one incident to blow up the premise that a man is honorable because women weren't out doing what he was. And calling women liars as proof isn't going to work forever.

[MichelleD]

Well, since Zina had a daughter with Brigham Young, I think the evidence that their polyandrous marriage was a sexual relationship is conclusive. I can't believe anyone is even attempting to claim otherwise here.

Why did Brigham Young marry Zina when she'd already been sealed to Joseph and had a legal husband?

One more question I have is this: Would Brigham and Zina's daughter be sealed to Joseph since that is who Zina was sealed to for eternity?

Edited May 13, 2014 by MichelleD

[JulieM]

Now since 1846, is there any evidence for a sexual or even marriage relationship with Henry? This would be of great import since the daughter you presented was born in 1850, years later.

The fact remains there is no evidence for sexual polyandry as is the criticism.

Wasn't Zina Jacobs pregnant with Henry's son when she married Brigham? I'm not sure what year that was, but I think it may have been around 1846. I remember reading about this whole thing and being very confused and wondering as well why Brigham Young even felt he needed to marry her since she couldn't be sealed to him and she was very obviously still having relations with Henry.

BCSpace, are you saying that if Zina stopped having relations with her husband later after she married Brigham Young, then that made their marriage not polyandry (even though she was legally married to Henry still)? Do you believe a woman has to be having sex with both husbands to be classified as polyandry? I've never heard of that.

As far as evidence for sexual polyandry, I have to agree with others that Zina and Brigham's daughter is pretty darn good evidence of sex being involved.

Edited May 13, 2014 by JulieM

[juliann]

 

BCSpace, are you saying that if Zina stopped having relations with her husband later after she married Brigham Young, then that made their marriage not polyandry (even though she was legally married to Henry still)? Do you believe a woman has to be having sex with both husbands to be classified as polyandry? I've never heard of that.

 

When it is incontrovertible that a woman was having relations with one man, they will come up with a reason why she couldn't with the other.  They were too far apart, they weren't all living in the same household, the woman didn't like the legal husband, a sealing was only for time and eternity, etc. etc. If these same rules were applied to polygyny, they could erase most of that, too.  I'm not saying there aren't convincing arguments for no contact with one of the husbands in some cases, but not for all.  And they have to rule out  every   single   possibility  to say there was no "real" polyandry. That has not been done.

[BCSpace]

Here is your problem, aside from the fact that it is absurd to insist there were no sexual relations in a marriage to begin with

 

 

I have never asserted no sexual relations in an actual marriage relationship.  Just as I don't assert that sealing necessarily equates to marriage.

Edited May 13, 2014 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

I'm not saying there aren't convincing arguments for no contact with one of the husbands in some cases, but not for all

 

 

Neither am I.  But in this particular case, the argument is easily made.

 

And they have to rule out  every   single   possibility  to say there was no "real" polyandry. That has not been done.

 

 

Nor have I claimed that.  All I have claimed is that the evidence leads away from polyandry. That means I also claim there is NO evidence for polyandry, especially in all the JS cases, at least three of the BY cases, and shortly I may be willing to go out on a limb and say all BY cases.

 

The whole criticism is based on, in particular, the Fawn Brodie narrative, which is inaccurate at best (it almost seems as if she did it intentionally).  Compton is better, but still incomplete.  Hence you have a set of critics and apologists who've based their assumptions on inaccurate information and it's apparently hard to let go and accept the real and complete evidence which if a person would have begun with, would likely have led to a more faithful conclusion imho.

[juliann]

 

 

The whole criticism is based on, in particular, the Fawn Brodie narrative, which is inaccurate at best (it almost seems as if she did it intentionally).  Compton is better, but still incomplete.  Hence you have a set of critics and apologists who've based their assumptions on inaccurate information and it's apparently hard to let go and accept the real and complete evidence which if a person would have begun with, would likely have led to a more faithful conclusion imho.

Like a faithful, pillar of a woman able to consider the possibility Joseph fathered her child while she was with another man?  ( they did know how babies were made at that time.)

[JulieM]

Nor have I claimed that.  All I have claimed is that the evidence leads away from polyandry. That means I also claim there is NO evidence for polyandry, especially in all the JS cases, at least three of the BY cases, and shortly I may be willing to go out on a limb and say all BY cases.

BCSpace, you must believe that Joseph's and Brigham's sealings to other women were not marriages. Is that correct? Otherwise, what you stated above makes no sense. I'm just trying to understand your reasoning and belief that there is no evidence for polyandry. Do you know the definition for polyandry?

[MichelleD]

BCSpace, you must believe that Joseph's and Brigham's sealings to other women were not marriages. Is that correct? Otherwise, what you stated above makes no sense. I'm just trying to understand your reasoning and belief that there is no evidence for polyandry. Do you know the definition for polyandry?

But if he believes the sealings weren't marriages then many early Prophets and church members would be adulterers. He can't have it both ways. There's no question that Joseph and Brigham married women who had living, legal husbands. What's mainly up for debate is whether Joseph's polyandrous marriages were sexual relationships or not. There is evidence that at least one of Brigham's was (his daughter with Zina).

Edited May 13, 2014 by MichelleD

[Bikeemikey]

Can some one explain how any of this is a criticism that warrants defense?

So people back in the day had a different view of marriage and sex... So what?