Teach About Polyandry Or Don't Mention It?

[ALarson]

As I've posted before, my Bishop is teaching about the church essays in our ward's 5th Sunday meetings.  This next Sunday, we'll be discussing the essay "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo" ( https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng ).

 

He's now asked me a few times (last night being the most recent) whether or not he should just try to stick to Joseph's (and other's during that time) polygamy and not go into his polyandry.

 

I've opted out of teaching this lesson with him, but my advice is that polyandry is in the essay and it'll probably come up at least during the Q & A period at the end of the lesson. If asked about it, he should just say that yes this was a part of Joseph's (and a few other's) polygamy and leave it at that if possible.  But, maybe he should have something prepared in case the subject is pushed by any members.

 

I honestly see no faithful way of teaching polyandry (and neither does my Bishop really, thus his question).  We have no record of polyandry being commanded by God (that I'm aware of).  But I'm hoping some of you on here may have suggestions for how to handle this topic if it comes up on Sunday.  I'll pass any of your suggestions on to my Bishop. Thanks in advance.

Edited August 28, 2015 by ALarson

[Duncan]

As I've posted before, my Bishop is teaching about the church essays in our ward's 5th Sunday meetings.  This next Sunday, we'll be discussing the essay "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo" ( https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng ).

 

He's now asked me a few times (last night being the most recent) whether or not he should just try to stick to Joseph's (and other's during that time) polygamy and not go into his polyandry.

 

I've opted out of teaching this lesson with him, but my advice is that polyandry is in the essay and it'll probably come up at least during the Q & A period at the end of the lesson. If asked about it, he should just say that yes this was a part of Joseph's (and a few other's) polygamy and leave it at that if possible.  But, maybe he should have something prepared in case the subject is pushed by any members.

 

I honestly see no faithful way of teaching polyandry (and neither does my Bishop really, thus his question).  We have no record of polyandry being commanded by God (that I'm aware of).  But I'm hoping some of you on here may have suggestions for how to handle this topic if it comes up on Sunday.  I'll pass any of your suggestions on to my Bishop. Thanks in advance.

 

 

just read the essay and if people have questions then they can ask them

[stemelbow]

As I've posted before, my Bishop is teaching about the church essays in our ward's 5th Sunday meetings. This next Sunday, we'll be discussing the essay "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo" ( https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng ).

He's now asked me a few times (last night being the most recent) whether or not he should just try to stick to Joseph's (and other's during that time) polygamy and not go into his polyandry.

I've opted out of teaching this lesson with him, but my advice is that polyandry is in the essay and it'll probably come up at least during the Q & A period at the end of the lesson. If asked about it, he should just say that yes this was a part of Joseph's (and a few other's) polygamy and leave it at that if possible. But, maybe he should have something prepared in case the subject is pushed by any members.

I honestly see no faithful way of teaching polyandry (and neither does my Bishop really, thus his question). We have no record of polyandry being commanded by God (that I'm aware of). But I'm hoping some of you on here may have suggestions for how to handle this topic if it comes up on Sunday. I'll pass any of your suggestions on to my Bishop. Thanks in advance.

Why must it be taught as being commanded of God? Teach that it happened and let the class decide whether it was divinely sanctioned or not.

[Sevenbak]

I don't know why people are so afraid of the subject. Bushman has addressed it thoroughly, and several others as well. I think it does belong because it's all part of the family seailing process.

If your bishop is going to actually teach a lesson on it, there is great material here, including personal explanation from the women involved.

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

[ALarson]

just read the essay and if people have questions then they can ask them

We passed the essay out this past Sunday for the members to read in preparation for this next Sunday's lesson.  I'm sure they'll come with questions, but the Bishop is teaching a lesson prior to opening it up to questions.  He's just wondering if he should focus on polygamy rather than go into the topic of polyandry too in his lesson.

[ALarson]

Why must it be taught as being commanded of God? Teach that it happened and let the class decide whether it was divinely sanctioned or not.

Well, because that's what it comes down to when explaining why Joseph had to live polygamy.  He didn't want to, but was very forcefully commanded to live it.  So, why live polyandry too?  I think that's very logical to follow that line of reasoning. 

[SmileyMcGee]

I don't see a problem with teaching it. If someone asks a question that you don't have a good answer to you can always just say "I don't know." It may help members think more critically about their beliefs towards polygamy in general.

[rockpond]

My best faithful guess on polyandry is that Joseph was trying to create a big web of sealings (as opposed to the tree model that we envision today). But it presents a problem in that there's no support for that in section 132.

That said, your bishop needs to teach it as part of the lesson or else it will look like he's specifically avoiding it and ward members will then be left wondering why.

[JulieM]

I think it should just be taught following the order in the actual essay. Just quote the part about polyandry from the essay and move on. There's really no great way to faithfully teach how Joseph married other mens' wives (especially him asking for faithful member's wives). If there are questions about it, he can say that there are some things we just don't understand now and we will hopefully learn the reasons for later.

Edited August 28, 2015 by JulieM

[JulieM]

It's also kind of hard to ignore polyandry when iirc, about 1/3 of Joseph's wives were other mens' legal wives when Joseph was sealed to them. Polyandry is a big part of how Joseph lived polygamy.

[ALarson]

From what I can tell, I think the Bishop is worried about it turning into a discussion about what type of marriages these were (consummated or not) and he doesn't want the lesson to turn into a sex speculation discussion.

 

But, I said that is brought up in the essay too.

[HappyJackWagon]

I agree with others, polyandry needs to be included. Otherwise the bishop could be accused of "whitewashing" the history and the essay. If he's going to address the mess of polygamy he may as well go all the way. When he is inevitably asked about why it was practiced the bishop will need to give the only answer we have. "We don't know".

 

When asked if JS had marital relationships with married women we would need to admit "In some cases it is probable. In other cases it isn't likely."

 

He needs to lay it out and not feel the need to be an apologist. Just admit that it's a mess we don't understand.

 

ETA- looking forward to hearing the report on Monday.

Edited August 28, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Jonahatw]

From what I can tell, I think the Bishop is worried about it turning into a discussion about what type of marriages these were (consummated or not) and he doesn't want the lesson to turn into a sex speculation discussion.

 

But, I said that is brought up in the essay too.

Fantastic that your Bishop is presenting this material for discussion.  I only wish this was more pervasive across the church that more members might be similarly exposed to this information.  Hopefully, in time this will be the case.

 

Here's how I would attempt to present Polyandry in a faithful way.  (I must stress that none of the following represents my own view):

 

1.  It was a ramping up of the 'Abrahamic test' element which began with Polygamy.  A way of sifting out those early saints whose faith was lacking and refining the pure in heart.  Fulfillment of D&C 136: 31 "My people must be tried in all things that they may be prepared to receive the glory that I have for them".

2.  Joseph was forging eternal and dynastic links with his brothers and sisters - a way of connecting himself, by eternal ties, to those he loved within his close circle of associations and affording them an eternal union with himself in the Celestial Kingdom.

 

I think a faithful rendering is possible and then, as others have said here, allow the class to evaluate the material themselves.

[Nevo]

Here's how the JSP editors tackled the subject of polyandry:

 

"Several later documents suggest that several women who were already married to other men were . . . married or sealed to Joseph Smith. . . . 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" (http://josephsmithpapers.org/doc/introduction-to-journals-volume-2)

 

I wouldn't go beyond that. If people want more info, Brian Hales's books and website, and Greg Smith's FairMormon article (cited by Sevenbak), are good resources.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Nevo

[HappyJackWagon]

Fantastic that your Bishop is presenting this material for discussion.  I only wish this was more pervasive across the church that more members might be similarly exposed to this information.  Hopefully, in time this will be the case.

 

Here's how I would attempt to present Polyandry in a faithful way.  (I must stress that none of the following represents my own view):

 

1.  It was a ramping up of the 'Abrahamic test' element which began with Polygamy.  A way of sifting out those early saints whose faith was lacking and refining the pure in heart.  Fulfillment of D&C 136: 31 "My people must be tried in all things that they may be prepared to receive the glory that I have for them".

2.  Joseph was forging eternal and dynastic links with his brothers and sisters - a way of connecting himself, by eternal ties, to those he loved within his close circle of associations and affording them an eternal union with himself in the Celestial Kingdom.

 

I think a faithful rendering is possible and then, as others have said here, allow the class to evaluate the material themselves.

Jonah, I definitely agree with #2 but I think #1 could almost be considered a grooming for the future return of polyandry or wicked men  trying to convince married women to consider their advances. I know that is extreme but I just don't see anything good at all coming from #1. The issue of Abrahamic tests can really be abused.

[CV75]

As I've posted before, my Bishop is teaching about the church essays in our ward's 5th Sunday meetings.  This next Sunday, we'll be discussing the essay "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo" ( https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng ).

Regardless of what spiritual purpose he decides to focus on, I think it would be good for him to mention all the sealing permutations that are mentioned in the essay(s). For polyandry, he can refer to footnote #30 and invite each member to draw his own conclusion.

[ERayR]

If it comes up simply explain that Joseph was commanded to institute polygamy and were working out the details.

[Rivers]

No matter how you explain it to them, a few testimonies will certainly be shaken.

Remind them of the immense complexity of the issue and refer them to writings of Brian and Laura Hales.

I'd quote Laura Hales' from her recent FAIR conference address in which she counseled to stay focused on Christ.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Rivers

[mnn727]

This kind of says it all (Directly from the essay)

 

Although the Lord commanded the adoption—and later the cessation—of plural marriage in the latter days, He did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment. Significant social and cultural changes often include misunderstandings and difficulties. Church leaders and members experienced these challenges as they heeded the command to practice plural marriage and again later as they worked to discontinue it after Church President Wilford Woodruff issued an inspired statement known as the Manifesto in 1890, which led to the end of plural marriage in the Church. Through it all, Church leaders and members sought to follow God’s will.

Many details about the early practice of plural marriage are unknown. Plural marriage was introduced among the early Saints incrementally, and participants were asked to keep their actions confidential. They did not discuss their experiences publicly or in writing until after the Latter-day Saints had moved to Utah and Church leaders had publicly acknowledged the practice. The historical record of early plural marriage is therefore thin: few records of the time provide details, and later reminiscences are not always reliable. Some ambiguity will always accompany our knowledge about this issue. Like the participants, we “see through a glass, darkly” and are asked to walk by faith

 

Edited August 28, 2015 by mnn727

[carbon dioxide]

As I've posted before, my Bishop is teaching about the church essays in our ward's 5th Sunday meetings.  This next Sunday, we'll be discussing the essay "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo" ( https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng ).

 

He's now asked me a few times (last night being the most recent) whether or not he should just try to stick to Joseph's (and other's during that time) polygamy and not go into his polyandry.

 

I've opted out of teaching this lesson with him, but my advice is that polyandry is in the essay and it'll probably come up at least during the Q & A period at the end of the lesson. If asked about it, he should just say that yes this was a part of Joseph's (and a few other's) polygamy and leave it at that if possible.  But, maybe he should have something prepared in case the subject is pushed by any members.

 

I honestly see no faithful way of teaching polyandry (and neither does my Bishop really, thus his question).  We have no record of polyandry being commanded by God (that I'm aware of).  But I'm hoping some of you on here may have suggestions for how to handle this topic if it comes up on Sunday.  I'll pass any of your suggestions on to my Bishop. Thanks in advance.

I don't see any problem talking about the polyandry part as long as the facts are taught which include that there is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever had sexual relations with any of those women.  Too many people associate sex and marriage together as if one MUST always follow the other.  That is not the case.  Sexless marriages can and do exist.

[rpn]

I would acknowledge that it was done, and I would refer to the material in the Teachings of the Prophets Wilford Woodruff manual (temple lesson and introduction) which speaks about his revelation that they'd been doing sealings wrong and needed to do them to their own ancestors.

[hope_for_things]

My attempt at a faithful explanation would focus on this principle of sealing for eternity.  I’m just reading a book titled, This is my Doctrine, by Charlie Harrell, its great, and he really details the evolution of the sealing and priesthood doctrines.  While the Elijiah vision occurred in 1836 in the Kirtland temple, the ideas around sealing did not develop until well into the Nauvoo period including the final concept of children and parents being sealed I believe was in March of 1844, and then we didn’t even seal parents to children in the temple until 1894 when the law of adoption was retired and the sealing of parents and children started. 

 

The essay says that Joseph received the commandment to practice polygamy, but didn’t get any details about how to do this.  My belief is that most revelation occurs gradually, and line upon line over long periods of time.  I also believe there is a divine principle that Joseph started to articulate and conceive around this concept of the human family being linked and bound together starting in Nauvoo.  I believe this is an important principle, and perhaps part of the explanation for his experimentation with polygamy and polyandry. 

 

The principle of linking of the human family and families is the divine core that I think the church needs to hold onto.  This is the concept that I personally don’t want to reject.  The specific mechanisms for practicing this principle, i.e. polygamy, polyandry, law of adoption, calling and election, these are all experimentations trying to tap into the divine principle, but ultimately fall short and we have abandoned them.  Who’s to say that our current mechanisms of sealing in the temple won’t change as we gain further light and knowledge about the principle of uniting families in the future.  

[Gray]

I don't see any problem talking about the polyandry part as long as the facts are taught which include that there is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever had sexual relations with any of those women.  Too many people associate sex and marriage together as if one MUST always follow the other.  That is not the case.  Sexless marriages can and do exist.

 

There is evidence that at least one was sexual, and no reason to suppose that the others were special platonic marriages.

[carbon dioxide]

There is evidence that at least one was sexual, and no reason to suppose that the others were special platonic marriages.

So you believe that marriage and sex MUST always go together.  if a couple get married and choose not to have sex, they are not married?

[cinepro]

So you believe that marriage and sex MUST always go together.  if a couple get married and choose not to have sex, they are not married?

 

Well, probably for not much longer.