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

[Calm]

Josephine cannot be tested for yet given the current technology from what I understand. I haven't seen any updates saying this has changed yet.

I don't know if Ugo has retired for now from testing, but he is currently doing other stuff last I heard.

He is pretty gracious about answering questions if you have any for him.

I believe this page's section on DNA testing lists the children tested so far, see also the table that has the two likely children...both females:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Children_of_polygamous_marriages

If anyone knows of something more up to date, would be interested...

Article from 2011:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700150651/DNA-solves-a-Joseph-Smith-mystery.html?pg=all

Edited May 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

I haven't read any of this thread and only this last page, but  Ugo Perego has done extensive DNA analysis and has yet to find any descendant of Joesph other than with Emma.

 

I've made my views on the subject of polyandry very clear, but I still fail to see why given the secretive nature and limited contact Joseph had with his wives that we should expect any children or use the lack thereof as absolute evidence against physical relationships.

[Calm]

If you have a quick look at Tacenda's recent post it talks about testing only being done on YDNA (male). Would that have an effect on Josephine? I don't know enough about the research so would welcome any suggested sources to finding out more.

I just read a comment from Ugo that the only DNA testing that demonstrated Joseph as father has been through Emma's children and that Josephine is the most likely other wife candidate but that DNA testing on her (or her descendants I am guessing) is inconclusive.

[juliann]

I think it best to assume JS lived by the same doctrine he revealed. 

Indeed. Polyandry was revealed by him in D&C 132:41.  

 

The reason this is so important is that no one is ever going to get any further with polygamy while denying or refusing to address an important part of its inception. 

[rodheadlee]

I disagree you have to carry it through to verse 44.

[juliann]

I disagree you have to carry it through to verse 44.

That doesn't change it,  it at least has to be left open as a possibility.  I disagree with a some things in the OT.  But it doesn't mean it's not there.

[omni]

So are you telling me that absence of evidence is evidence of abstinence?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I disagree you have to carry it through to verse 44.

Would you care to spell out what you think vs 41-44 mean? 41 and 42 clearly state the terms of adultery for a women and provide exclusions for being with another man if he was "appointed unto her by the holy anointing (vs 41)" or "in the new and everlasting covenant (vs 42)."

Verse 43-44 talks about what happens to the wives if a man commits adultery. Verse 44 states if the wife is innocent, then Joseph is to "take" her and "give" her to someone worthy that he can be made "ruler over many." While I find the verse incredibly sexist (I'd love to hear your take on this), I don't see how it relates to vs 41 and 42.

[thesometimesaint]

I just read a comment from Ugo that the only DNA testing that demonstrated Joseph as father has been through Emma's children and that Josephine is the most likely other wife candidate but that DNA testing on her (or her descendants I am guessing) is inconclusive.

 

Last I heard there was only one proposed descendent left to test. All the rest have come back negative. But that's been years ago so I don't know.

[wenglund]

In the reading for this coming Sunday School lesson there may be another example of polyandry, in which Samson is married to a philistine woman, and not long thereafter, and without divorce, her father gives her in marriage to another man. (Judges 14)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

So are you telling me that absence of evidence is evidence of abstinence?

 

That one deserves a rep just for sheer wit!

[Calm]

That is why I gave him one.

[juliann]

Would you care to spell out what you think vs 41-44 mean? 41 and 42 clearly state the terms of adultery for a women and provide exclusions for being with another man if he was "appointed unto her by the holy anointing (vs 41)" or "in the new and everlasting covenant (vs 42)."

Verse 43-44 talks about what happens to the wives if a man commits adultery. Verse 44 states if the wife is innocent, then Joseph is to "take" her and "give" her to someone worthy that he can be made "ruler over many." While I find the verse incredibly sexist (I'd love to hear your take on this), I don't see how it relates to vs 41 and 42.

 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.

 

It plainly says that being with another man is only a problem if she hasn't been appointed.  So if she is appointed it's cool. Since adultery is the question here there can be no question that "another man" means she is with two men.  Until recently,  such a thing would never have entered anyone's mind...and it didn't...so this little verse has gone unnoticed.  But talking about polyandry, even if just to eliminate the possibility, comes at a price...and that price is things like this will be given a second look. The rest of the verses are simply dealing with women who are not appointed...we all know there was a lot of that going around.

 

What I actually find the most shocking is that so many think Joseph would be taking on other men's wives without the same backup he gave for polygyny.  And speaking of sexism, how I framed this is incredibly sexist. This really is a story about women having two husbands, just as men had two wives.  We always discuss polygamy from a male view.  But far more women were involved in polygamy than men. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 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.

 

It plainly says that being with another man is only a problem if she hasn't been appointed.  So if she is appointed it's cool. Since adultery is the question here there can be no question that "another man" means she is with two men.  Until recently,  such a thing would never have entered anyone's mind...and it didn't...so this little verse has gone unnoticed.  But talking about polyandry, even if just to eliminate the possibility, comes at a price...and that price is things like this will be given a second look. The rest of the verses are simply dealing with women who are not appointed...we all know there was a lot of that going around.

I am afraid your conclusions are correct. Interesting that it has taken this long for this to come out. That actually to me is some what amazing.

[juliann]

I am afraid your conclusions are correct. Interesting that it has taken this long for this to come out. That actually to me is some what amazing.

And I only noticed it because someone on this blog pointed it out a few years ago, I wish I remembered who.  Amazing doesn't begin to describe how this has been overlooked and it certainly speaks volumes about how well we really know our scripture rather than what people say about it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And I only noticed it because someone on this blog pointed it out a few years ago, I wish I remembered who.  Amazing doesn't begin to describe how this has been overlooked and it certainly speaks volumes about how well we really know our scripture rather than what people say about it.

I was thinking the same thing. Specifically that amazing really does not describe accurately this particular issue. I think it would be worth looking at every thing in light of this. I am quite convinced there are several things we are all missing. 

 

I remember years ago I had a goal to try to figure out the many mysteries of the scripture. I still try but my puny mind cant handle it all. I get stuck in sort of an auto pilot mode.

[Nemesis]

There have been some godwin's law violations in this thread. I am keeping this thread open.

 

Nemesis

[Senator]

 I think it would be worth looking at every thing in light of this.

 

Why?

[Calm]

Why?

You don't think it is a good idea to try and look at scripture outside what we expect it to say?

[Senator]

You don't think it is a good idea to try and look at scripture outside what we expect it to say?

 

Well, of course. But in regards to "this particular issue", where is the warrant in the church that it be given such scrutiny?

 

In other words when was the last time a spiritual or faithful lesson was culled from our polygamous history? I know the topic is at least covered in institute and seminary manuals, but is avoided in the Gospel Doctrine manual

 

 

.....I can hear the search engines revving.....

Edited May 16, 2014 by Senator

[Calm]

 

 

.....I can hear the search engines revving.....

Ha!  that brought a smile…but not today.  For some reason my obsession impulse is switched off at the moment.  Maybe tomorrow.  Or maybe someone else.  

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why?

I am not specifically thinking of polygamy but generally. This is just something that seems to have gone unnoticed for years and yet I wonder what other things we are missing that are right before us because we think we know the scriptures.

 

But hey if you don't think it is a good idea don't let me get in your way.

[Senator]

I am not specifically thinking of polygamy but generally. This is just something that seems to have gone unnoticed for years and yet I wonder what other things we are missing that are right before us because we think we know the scriptures.

 

But hey if you don't think it is a good idea don't let me get in your way.

 

I was speaking specifically of polygamy. And no, I never said it was a good or bad idea, but merely questioned why you thought it was a good idea given the church's overall reticence to embrace our polygamous (let alone polyandrous) history and set it upon a pedestal for all to see and from which we glean faithful anecdotes like we do with many of the other heroic actions of our forefathers.

 

I don't think it is mere accident that this particular item has been overlooked.

[juliann]

I was speaking specifically of polygamy. And no, I never said it was a good or bad idea, but merely questioned why you thought it was a good idea given the church's overall reticence to embrace our polygamous (let alone polyandrous) history and set it upon a pedestal for all to see and from which we glean faithful anecdotes like we do with many of the other heroic actions of our forefathers.

 

I don't think it is mere accident that this particular item has been overlooked.

Along with many other items....which has led to the church beginning to put out Gospel Teachings topics on scandalous topics that have been "overlooked."   The fact that so much effort is being put into "proving" women weren't doing what men were doing shows an awareness that there is a growing problem with polyandry in a culture that still demands double standards.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

I don't think it is mere accident that this particular item has been overlooked.

Now that is a different topic that I am sure could fill volumes. All I know is that it has indeed been over looked and I never once heard anyone talking about it this way. I have read those verse a hundred times. If after 100 times of reading them I never even noticed I wonder what else I am missing.