Teach About Polyandry Or Don't Mention It?

[cinepro]

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".

 

Can someone explain to me exactly what an "Abrahamic test" is supposed to be?  Because if it's an analogy to Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac, I would point out that he passed the test by being willing to do it, and then didn't have to. 

 

He didn't kill Isaac, and then start sacrificing all the other boys in the area just to make sure he really, really passed it.

[Buckeye]

Can someone explain to me exactly what an "Abrahamic test" is supposed to be?  Because if it's an analogy to Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac, I would point out that he passed the test by being willing to do it, and then didn't have to. 

 

He didn't kill Isaac, and then start sacrificing all the other boys in the area just to make sure he really, really passed it.

 

Scripturally, I believe the phrase refers to D/C 101 where the Lord says the Saints must be tried "even as Abraham," meaning they can only be sanctified if they will endure chastening.

 

 

 1 Verily I say unto you, concerning your brethren who have been afflicted, and persecuted, and cast out from the land of their inheritance—

 2 I, the Lord, have suffered the affliction to come upon them, wherewith they have been afflicted, in consequence of their transgressions;

 3 Yet I will own them, and they shall be mine in that day when I shall come to make up my jewels.

 4 Therefore, they must needs be chastened and tried, even as Abraham, who was commanded to offer up his only son.

 5 For all those who will not endure chastening, but deny me, cannot be sanctified.

 

Culturally, in my experience the phrase is used to describe whatever "test" a person believes would be the hardest thing they could imagine - i.e., killing a child.

[Gray]

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?

 

I think that marriage itself is suggestive of a sexual relationship. Without evidence to the contrary, it's reasonable to assume that any marriage is probably sexual. The secrecy of these marriages seems to support that as well. 

[ALarson]

I think that marriage itself is suggestive of a sexual relationship. Without evidence to the contrary, it's reasonable to assume that any marriage is probably sexual. The secrecy of these marriages seems to support that as well. 

I think that even Hales states that at least one of Joseph's polyandrous marriages was most likely consummated.  Or am I remembering incorrectly? 

 

ETA:

Here's a link to Brian Hales writings on Sylvia Session Lyon:

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/did-joseph-smith-practice-sexual-polyandry-with-sylvia-sessions/

 

From this page:

 

I personally believe that Josephine was Joseph Smith daughter and would be very surprised if she is not. New DNA evidence may help resolve this controversy

 

Edited August 28, 2015 by ALarson

[ERayR]

I think that marriage itself is suggestive of a sexual relationship. Without evidence to the contrary, it's reasonable to assume that any marriage is probably sexual. The secrecy of these marriages seems to support that as well. 

 

Soooo. 

 

Do you differentiate between marriage and sealing?

[ALarson]

I appreciate all of the thoughts and suggestions so far and will pass them on to my Bishop.  Thanks!

[ERayR]

I think that even Hales states that at least one of Joseph's polyandrous marriages was most likely consummated.  Or am I remembering incorrectly? 

 

ETA:

Here's a link to Brian Hales writings on Sylvia Session Lyon:

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/did-joseph-smith-practice-sexual-polyandry-with-sylvia-sessions/

 

From this page:

 

Sooo.

[ALarson]

Sooo.

I agree.  I would expect most of Joseph's sealings or marriages to be consummated.

 

What I wrote was in response to carbon dioxide's post (#20):

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.

 

Edited August 28, 2015 by ALarson

[jpv]

I'd address it in class, much better for them to be exposed in Church instead of somewhere else.

 

I'd try to brush up on Hales research on polyandry beforehand though---e.g. that there is no evidence for true sexual polyandry--he even gets Vogel to admit to this.

 

I'd also address that the meaning of sealing has shifted significantly--similar to the Nauvoo Temple baptismal font--I believe it was used for rebaptism and baptism for healing as much as for proxy baptism.

[carbon dioxide]

I think that marriage itself is suggestive of a sexual relationship. Without evidence to the contrary, it's reasonable to assume that any marriage is probably sexual. The secrecy of these marriages seems to support that as well. 

In most cases that is true but if sex happened in these cases, one could argue that Joseph Smith was one of the dumbest men to have ever lived.  Surely he would have known that having sex with these women could lead to a baby.  Having a baby would lead to a world of trouble for Joseph on many levels.  I see very little benefit Joseph gaining from going that far yet a whole lot of problems.  The secrecy of the marriages might have to do with polygamy and polyandry itself rather than the need to have sex.  Joseph made mistakes in his life like was all do but I give Joseph the benefit of a doubt that he was not that stupid.

[hope_for_things]

I'd address it in class, much better for them to be exposed in Church instead of somewhere else.

 

I'd try to brush up on Hales research on polyandry beforehand though---e.g. that there is no evidence for true sexual polyandry--he even gets Vogel to admit to this.

 

I'd also address that the meaning of sealing has shifted significantly--similar to the Nauvoo Temple baptismal font--I believe it was used for rebaptism and baptism for healing as much as for proxy baptism.

Can you share where Vogel admits to no evidence for true sexual polyandry?  I’ve read Hales latest book, and followed this subject and I don’t recall this.  I would be interested if you can provide a reference.  

[Gray]

Soooo. 

 

Do you differentiate between marriage and sealing?

 

Depends. If you're sealed to a living woman as her father, it's not a marriage. If your'e sealed to a living woman as her husband, it's a marriage. 

[JulieM]

In most cases that is true but if sex happened in these cases, one could argue that Joseph Smith was one of the dumbest men to have ever lived. Surely he would have known that having sex with these women could lead to a baby. Having a baby would lead to a world of trouble for Joseph on many levels.

There most likely was at least one child born from Joseph's marriage to Sylvia Sessions (her daughter Josephine who even Brian Hales believes is most likely Joseph's daughter from what I've read).

Carbon, do you believe neither Brigham Young nor Parley P. Pratt had marital relations with their wives who they practices polyandry with? Or just that Joseph didn't?

Edited August 28, 2015 by JulieM

[Gray]

In most cases that is true but if sex happened in these cases, one could argue that Joseph Smith was one of the dumbest men to have ever lived.  Surely he would have known that having sex with these women could lead to a baby.  Having a baby would lead to a world of trouble for Joseph on many levels.  I see very little benefit Joseph gaining from going that far yet a whole lot of problems.  The secrecy of the marriages might have to do with polygamy and polyandry itself rather than the need to have sex.  Joseph made mistakes in his life like was all do but I give Joseph the benefit of a doubt that he was not that stupid.

 

Actually pregnancy in the polyandrous marriages would be less dangerous. People unaware of polygamy would assume that the legal husband was the father. Maybe that's why most of his first marriages were polyandrous. We know he was trying to keep polygamy a secret. If women who were considered to be unmarried started getting pregnant, that would raise questions about who the father was. 

 

As Don Bradley has observed, it doesn't really make sense to think that Joseph was never motivated by sex. He was a human being. All of us are partially motivated by sex, unless there's something amiss. We know that at least one of those polyandrous marriages was consummated. So obviously he didn't have some taboo about it. 

Edited August 28, 2015 by Gray

[ALarson]

There most likely was at least one child born from Joseph's marriage to Sylvia Sessions (her daughter Josephine who even Brian Hales believes is most likely Joseph's daughter from what I've read).

Carbon, do you believe neither Brigham Young nor Parley P. Pratt had marital relations with their wives who they practices polyandry with? Or just that Joseph didn't?

Well, we know that Brigham Young consummated at least one of his polyandrous marriages (he had a daughter with Zina Huntington Jacobs).

[ERayR]

Depends. If you're sealed to a living woman as her father, it's not a marriage. If your'e sealed to a living woman as her husband, it's a marriage. 

 

Not so the marriage and sealing are two different ordinances.  One could be sealed without being married.  It isn't done, at this point in time, that I know of. 

[HappyJackWagon]

Not so the marriage and sealing are two different ordinances.  One could be sealed without being married.  It isn't done, at this point in time, that I know of. 

I don't think so. One is not simply "sealed". A person is sealed within the context of a relationship, ie son/daughter, husband/wife.

[Gray]

Not so the marriage and sealing are two different ordinances.  One could be sealed without being married.  It isn't done, at this point in time, that I know of. 

 

Was it done in Joseph Smith's time? I remember reading that something like that developed in the Utah period, but I'm not aware of anything like that in Nauvoo or earlier. 

Edited August 28, 2015 by Gray

[The Nehor]

I think that marriage itself is suggestive of a sexual relationship. Without evidence to the contrary, it's reasonable to assume that any marriage is probably sexual. The secrecy of these marriages seems to support that as well.

http://dilbert.com/strip/1995-05-03

[ALarson]

Not so the marriage and sealing are two different ordinances.  One could be sealed without being married.  It isn't done, at this point in time, that I know of. 

So, do you believe the "sealings" were not consummated and the "marriages" were?  

 

But, both would involve being sealed, correct?  Was the wording different in a marriage sealing vs. just a sealing only?  Do we have record of this taking place in Nauvoo?

 

ETA:

ERay, are you referring to Joseph's marriage to Fanny Alger?  I guess that would not have been a sealing, but just a marriage since the sealing keys had not been restored to Joseph yet.  

Edited August 28, 2015 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

So, do you believe the "sealings" were not consummated and the "marriages" were?  

 

But, both would involve being sealed, correct?  Was the wording different in a marriage sealing vs. just a sealing only?  Do we have record of this taking place in Nauvoo?

There were all kinds of sealings. Adoptions of men to men as sons. Jane Manning was later sealed to Joseph as a servant. But again, every sealing was relational. One would not expect a marital relationship with someone sealed as a son or a servant, but as a wife. Sure. Why not?

Edited August 28, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Jonahatw]

Can someone explain to me exactly what an "Abrahamic test" is supposed to be?  Because if it's an analogy to Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac, I would point out that he passed the test by being willing to do it, and then didn't have to. 

 

He didn't kill Isaac, and then start sacrificing all the other boys in the area just to make sure he really, really passed it.

 

Yeah I thought I'd have a go at describing a 'faith promoting' slant on Polyandry ... But my heart wasn't in it.  Yes the analogy is strained, but perhaps for those who believe that polyandry was inspired/commanded, whatever ... one of its purposes could have been to stretch the faithful capacities of those around Joseph to breaking point.  What did Smith once say, 'God will feel after you and take hold of your very heart strings and if you cannot stand it then you are not fit for a Celestial inheritance in the kingdom of Heaven'.  I don't buy it personally, but isn't the 'test a faith' argument the final refuge for all those attempting to defend the indefensible?

[The Nehor]

There were all kinds of sealings. Adoptions of men to men as sons. Jane Manning was later sealed to Joseph as a servant. But again, every sealing was relational. One would not expect a marital relationship with someone sealed as a son or a servant, but as a wife. Sure. Why not?

Well, a better question might be to ask if those sealings were treated the same as a more casual relationship. Were those sealed as sons to Joseph invited to family events and did they expect an inheritance? If a father to son sealing was not treated like an actual adoption why would a husband to wife sealing without a marriage involve the things normally involved in marriage?

[ERayR]

So, do you believe the "sealings" were not consummated and the "marriages" were?  

 

But, both would involve being sealed, correct?  Was the wording different in a marriage sealing vs. just a sealing only?  Do we have record of this taking place in Nauvoo?

 

ETA:

ERay, are you referring to Joseph's marriage to Fanny Alger?  I guess that would not have been a sealing, but just a marriage since the sealing keys had not been restored to Joseph yet.  

 

I have no way of knowing for sure but that certainly sums up my thinking.

 

Not necessarily as marriages for time only were performed in the temple.  Have you been to a temple marriage?  The couple are first married then they are sealed.  The sealing follows immediately but there is a distinct separation.

[omni]

I appreciate all of the thoughts and suggestions so far and will pass them on to my Bishop. Thanks!

If he decides to go the dynastic sealing route, he might want to be prepared for possible follow up questions such as:

1. Why were they kept secret if they were merely dynastic in nature?

2. Why not get sealed to the husband instead and avoid "the appearance of evil"?

3. Why don't we perform those sealings today?

4. Is there scriptural precedence or authoritative statements from Joseph Smith supporting these types of sealings?