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

[juliann]

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?

They are making it a matter of Joseph's character. If he was having relations with multiple unmarried women that is honorable. But if he had any relationship with a married woman, he is a scoundrel. In other words, it is the women who must uphold honor. If they are pure (defined as relations with only one man) then all men are deigned pure when they have relationships with more than one woman. So they must create a new definition of marriage if there is any remote possibility a woman's marriages will sully the men's right to claim honor despite multiple sex partners.  How they connect the dots on that escapes me, it is quite tribal, but that is what is going on.   

[juliann]

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).

Remember, this is all about women only having one sex partner. Not about who married who. So all that has to happen is to ensure that a woman who marries a second husband is not having relations with the first. So if she is legally married to another man and even living with him, they will find evidence that she was in a celibate legal marriage or that the second husband was only a paperwork transaction.  Problem solved. Woman only has one sex partner.  Then it is announced as not being "real" polyandry.  Of course, it is just plain impossible to know what every person was doing every hour every day for years. That is why I find this an exercise in absurdity no matter what the very, very limited available seems to point toward. There is just way too much unaccounted time to ever be able to say that married people didn't ever do married things.

 

The more interesting story, like Bikeemickey points out, is why this is so very important to some to the point they can't just say we really don't know what the heck every single woman was up to every minute of her life.

Edited May 13, 2014 by juliann

[BCSpace]

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.)

 

 

 

I just posted an excellent example of what I'm talking about in the Hales-Reddit thread.  A sample here:

 

 

He [Quinn] employs the same problematic logic in dating Zina Huntington’s sealing as he did with Louisa Beaman, by discounting evidence that is more voluminous and generally considered more reliable than that which he cites.

 

In summary, Quinn dismisses the sources quoted above corroborating and 1841 date, instead citing a second or third hand entry...

However, this might constitute another example of drawing an extreme conclusion from ambiguous evidences while simultaneously dismissing more reliable contradictory documentation.

 

 

It is only by ignoring the evidence or being ignorant of it that one can conclude that polyandry in these cases is reality or even a strong possibility.

 

If there is other evidence you think I'm missing, I'll gladly consider it.  But I've already asked another poster for it and I don't think any is forthcomming.

Edited May 13, 2014 by BCSpace

[juliann]

You have never read Quinn critique of Hales' selective use of sources, have you.  This isn't a battle about who is the best or most honest scholar...it is about writing on a page. See where Hales uses a source that supports his thesis on one page and then calls the same source unreliable on the very next page when it doesn't support his theory, just as Quinn pointed out. They both do that and then call each other on it because there isn't proof of anything....only conclusions based upon what they choose to give priority and what they choose to discard. 

[juliann]

 

 

 

It is only by ignoring the evidence or being ignorant of it that one can conclude that polyandry in these cases is reality or even a strong possibility.

 

So you have every minute of every day of every year of these people's lives documented and are sure none of these women ever had conjugal relations with their husbands, is that what you are saying?  

[BCSpace]

So you have every minute of every day of every year of these people's lives documented and are sure none of these women ever had conjugal relations with their husbands, is that what you are saying?

 

 

No.  I'm saying there is no evidence to support sexual polyandry and plenty of evidence against it as Hales correctly points out.

[BCSpace]

The following also is a claim by Hales (which I agree with) that begins to address the other topic of this thread; the scriptural and prophetic non support of sexual polyandry:

 

The answer to the question of whether Joseph Smith practiced sexual polyandry is “no.” There is no reliable evidence to support it, and his documented teachings and practices confirm that he would have considered it to be sexually immoral. For example, all known references to sexual polyandry by Church leaders (including three by Joseph Smith) condemn it as adultery. In addition, he taught that a “time and eternity” sealing would supersede a legal matrimony (causing it to be “done away”), so at no time could a woman have two husbands because the legal marriage would be dissolved in God’s eyes.

 

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/faq/sexual-polyandry/

[thesometimesaint]

They are making it a matter of Joseph's character. If he was having relations with multiple unmarried women that is honorable. But if he had any relationship with a married woman, he is a scoundrel. In other words, it is the women who must uphold honor. If they are pure (defined as relations with only one man) then all men are deigned pure when they have relationships with more than one woman. So they must create a new definition of marriage if there is any remote possibility a woman's marriages will sully the men's right to claim honor despite multiple sex partners.  How they connect the dots on that escapes me, it is quite tribal, but that is what is going on.   

 

Apparently that wasn't a big problem with God in the cases of King David and King Solomon.

[ALarson]

No.  I'm saying there is no evidence to support sexual polyandry.....

Zina Prescinda Young is evidence that Brigham Young practiced sexual polyandry.  So for you to say there "is no evidence", is wrong.

 

Or are you saying that Brigham Young practiced polyandry differently than Joseph Smith did?

[juliann]

Apparently that wasn't a big problem with God in the cases of King David and King Solomon.

Nor was giving female slaves to men as breeders....apparently.  What is your point?

Edited May 13, 2014 by juliann

[juliann]

No.  I'm saying there is no evidence to support sexual polyandry and plenty of evidence against it as Hales correctly points out.

 

Evidence as in the case of Flora where Hales says on pg. 5 [Vol.2]? 

 

"Almost nothing is known about this marriage and two observations raise questions whether it was ever consummated."   Based on this lack of evidence, Hales says on the next page that her legal marriage to another man "would be more easily understood if she were not sexually involved with the Prophet." 

 

You consider this evidence?

 

(Any reason you are spamming another thread with the same comments?)

[juliann]

"I can identify no reason for Helen Mar Kimball to have been bypassed as a witness except that she could not testify of experiencing a full conjugal plural marraige with Joseph Smith, . . ."  pg. 29

 

This isn't evidence, it is opinion.  His opinion may be well reasoned and correct...but it is not evidence.  He does not even consider that Helen may have refused to put such intimate details out for public ridicule.  Just because Hales comes from a believing perspective does not make him any less driven by agenda than those who hope to damage the church.  This is an important topic to me, I want data not opinion after opinion disguised as evidence to the point that every book from every agenda has to be read to find all of the sources accounted for.

Edited May 13, 2014 by juliann

[juliann]

pg 32:  "While the details are little [sic] sketchy, Rachel Ridgeway Ivins appears to have been. . ."   Sketchy? Appears to have been?

 

pg. 35:  "I argue that these were nonsexual "eternity only" sealings."    Even he isn't claiming hard evidence.
 

[thesometimesaint]

Nor was giving female slaves to men as breeders....apparently.  What is your point?

 

The OP asked for Scriptural precedent for polyandry. I just gave two examples where God evidently didn't have a problem with it.

[Tacenda]

The following also is a claim by Hales (which I agree with) that begins to address the other topic of this thread; the scriptural and prophetic non support of sexual polyandry:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60966-wrestling-with-polyandry/page-7

 

One of the stronger claims for polyandrous sexuality would be that of Mary Heron Snider, whose son-in-law Joseph E. Johnson (brother of Benjamin F. Johnson) said consummated a marriage to Joseph in his (Johnson's) household.

Brian Hales discusses this case at some length in his books. (It was first found by D. Michael Quinn, and then I located the source in Mike's papers at Yale and provided it to Brian.) Brian calls Johnson's testimony into question because he finds it at odds with Joseph's theology on marriage and because Johnson may have wanted to use Joseph's reported behavior to justify his own questionable behavior.

Still, what we have here is clearly evidence: a believing Latter-day Saint reported to the 12 that he knew Joseph had consummated a marriage to his mother-in-law in his own house; and no one present called him on this.

The case of Sylvia Session Lyon provides even stronger evidence of polyandrous sexuality (though, of course, Brian Hales offers a plausible scenario under which it may not have been, citing family sources in support of this scenario). Sylvia believed Joseph had fathered a child by her. Whether she was right about Josephine's paternity or not (and the name chosen for the girl suggests a high degree of confidence!), the very fact that she could believe the child was his indicates that she and Joseph had a sexual dimension to their marriage.

There are reasons to suspect that Sylvia and her legal husband Windsor Lyon had a de facto divorce after Windsor's excommunication and before Josephine's conception. But since this, far more than Josephine's paternity, is uncertain, the case provides some reason to believe in polyandrous sexuality.

I'm not taking the position that Joseph Smith participated in sexual polyandry. But I think it's best to be realistic that there is some evidence for it and that the evidence could end up tipping in that direction. How could one rule that out?

 

 

ETA:  The above is a post by Don Bradley.   

 

Edited May 13, 2014 by Tacenda

[juliann]

The OP asked for Scriptural precedent for polyandry. I just gave two examples where God evidently didn't have a problem with it.

Ah, but you gave examples of polygyny not polyandry. 

[juliann]

 

I'm not taking the position that Joseph Smith participated in sexual polyandry. But I think it's best to be realistic that there is some evidence for it and that the evidence could end up tipping in that direction. How could one rule that out?

 

 

ETA:  The above is a post by Don Bradley.   

 

Exactly.  Considering all his help with Hales' research, this has to be taken seriously.  No one can dismiss Hales's work, obviously, nor should they. But his ultimate conclusion does rely upon setting aside any evidence of polyandry.

Edited May 13, 2014 by juliann

[thesometimesaint]

Ah, but you gave examples of polygyny not polyandry. 

 

Not really; Polyandry is where a woman takes 2 or more husbands. In the cases of David and Solomon those women did have 2 husbands. Just depends on which direction it is looked at. 

[wenglund]

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?

 

There is an understandable tendency to view sealings in absolute and unalterable ways.  

 

However, the notion of temple divorces should lend some flexibility to this notion--if an eternal marriage can be unsealed on earth and recognized as such in heaven, then why can't it be unsealed in heaven?

 

Besides, for those of us who are the product of illegitimate births (resulting from adultery or promiscuity) at various branches of the family tree, we are faced with the question of to whom we should proxy seal wives and children. For example, my grandfather had a natural father that was different from his legal father, and so when my older brother inquired as to which of the fathers to proxy seal my grandfather, he was told to seal him to both and let God work it out in the hereafter.

 

It makes sense to me.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

As for whether there are scriptural examples of polyandry, what about Judah's daughter-in-law, Tamar, who consecutively married three of Judah's sons? (See HERE). 

 

What about Mary, the mother of Christ, who legitimately had a child by God and was also married to and had children by Joseph?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Remember, this is all about women only having one sex partner. Not about who married who. So all that has to happen is to ensure that a woman who marries a second husband is not having relations with the first. So if she is legally married to another man and even living with him, they will find evidence that she was in a celibate legal marriage or that the second husband was only a paperwork transaction.  Problem solved. Woman only has one sex partner.  Then it is announced as not being "real" polyandry.  Of course, it is just plain impossible to know what every person was doing every hour every day for years. That is why I find this an exercise in absurdity no matter what the very, very limited available seems to point toward. There is just way too much unaccounted time to ever be able to say that married people didn't ever do married things.

 

The more interesting story, like Bikeemickey points out, is why this is so very important to some to the point they can't just say we really don't know what the heck every single woman was up to every minute of her life.

That is exactly the point!

 

In ancient times, one could say "I divorce thee" three times and the wife was gone.  It should have worked both ways, for the wife as well as the husband, but of course it did not.  Where there are no civil "authorities" when and to whom one is "legally and lawfully wed" gets very blurry indeed, especially when we actually allow women to also make such decisions.  They personally knew what was right and wrong and made decisions as they needed to- it is not up to us to second guess their motives, or as you say, know where everyone was every minute.

 

The same anti-Mormons who make these kind of points probably see no problem with people today living together and switching up any way they like. Even if they don't endorse it, it is a fact of life and no one cares.

 

This is just total hypocrisy and prurient gossip with no substance.

[mfbukowski]

There is an understandable tendency to view sealings in absolute and unalterable ways.  

 

However, the notion of temple divorces should lend some flexibility to this notion--if an eternal marriage can be unsealed on earth and recognized as such in heaven, then why can't it be unsealed in heaven?

 

Besides, for those of us who are the product of illegitimate births (resulting from adultery or promiscuity) at various branches of the family tree, we are faced with the question of to whom we should proxy seal wives and children. For example, my grandfather had a natural father that was different from his legal father, and so when my older brother inquired as to which of the fathers to proxy seal my grandfather, he was told to seal him to both and let God work it out in the hereafter.

 

It makes sense to me.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And in our "modern families" this happens all the time and no one thinks twice about it!  It is becoming routine to wait to baptize a family until the parents are legally married, or waiting for "clearance" for a cancellation of sealing, or waiting 5 years before some couples can be sealed.

[canard78]

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.

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.

Even Hales reaches the conclusion that Joseph was intimate with women who were legally married to other men.

Keep your head in the sand if you prefer. It probably helps you hear more of your own voice. That's probably the only way you'll be able to listen to an opinion you agree with.

[juliann]

Not really; Polyandry is where a woman takes 2 or more husbands. In the cases of David and Solomon those women did have 2 husbands. Just depends on which direction it is looked at. 

You are playing with definitions.  At issue here is whether it was sexual polyandry.  And Bathsheba was not married to both men, that is why David had her husband killed.  It is called an affair not polyandry.  And you will need to name the wives of Solomon who were still living with another husband.  Do we really need these kinds of rabbit holes?

[juliann]

As for whether there are scriptural examples of polyandry, what about Judah's daughter-in-law, Tamar, who consecutively married three of Judah's sons? (See HERE). 

 

What about Mary, the mother of Christ, who legitimately had a child by God and was also married to and had children by Joseph?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But to be polygamy, there does have to be a marriage at the same time to two men. Tamar did not marry simultaneously.

 

D&C 132 

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

 42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.

 

Polyandry is only adultery if she has not received the holy anointing...in other words, permission.  Adultery means they are talking about you know what here. There is no need to go back to the Bible to produce scripture, we take modern scripture just as seriously.