Teach About Polyandry Or Don't Mention It?

[ERayR]

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?

 

I don't fully subscribe to the stretch their capacities either.  What I do see is a leadership trying to implement a doctrine and principle they did not fully understand. 

[Appleseed]

I don't quite understand what the big deal is.

 

If he had sex with his polygamous, polyamorous wives, does this change something of fundamental importance? Is he suddenly not a Prophet anymore? If he was acting as a man, or acting as a Prophet, he still was the first Prophet of this last dispensation. No?

[ERayR]

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?

 

Isn't it great to have such sharp hind sight? Why didn't you make some great investment decisions 5, 10 or 20 years ago?  You would have been richer than Bill Gates or Donald Trump by now.

[juliann]

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.

 

"Marriage" itself is usually all that is needed as evidence for consummation and more to the point....there is no evidence they didn't.

 

We don't make up new definitions of marriage when it comes to men having multiple wives. And our continuing double standard is the problem not the sex. The farthest anyone should go is to say nobody knows. You would look pretty silly saying that when it comes to what Brigham was doing with his wives....but whatever.

[juliann]

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.

This is how Valerie Hudson explains why monogamy is the eternal doctrine not polygamy.  Polygamy was the sacrifice not the reward....and those women will be released as Abraham's family was.

 

But even the sacrifice thing can go too far when it was women (and children) who were doing most of it. Why would women and children have to be "tested?"

[juliann]

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. 

 

Why not polyandry?? Why shouldn't women be given the same opportunities and choices? The only fall back is the discredited idea that polygamy created more children.  We do know that it was desirable to be linked to a person with high religious status. This way a woman could have that link regardless of who she was married to...with a side benefit that the first husband would also benefit from that linkage through his wife.  Polyandrous marriages could create dynastic webs more efficiently than polygynous marriages.

[Jonahatw]

I don't quite understand what the big deal is.

 

If he had sex with his polygamous, polyamorous wives, does this change something of fundamental importance? Is he suddenly not a Prophet anymore? If he was acting as a man, or acting as a Prophet, he still was the first Prophet of this last dispensation. No?

 

How does one establish when Joseph was acting as a man and acting as a prophet exactly?  That age old question in Mormonism.  If you can answer that question then you might just settle more controversies than just polyandry.  If polyandry and polygamy were uninspired decisions on his part and were not part of his prophetic mandate, then it prompts further questions elsewhere as to the inspired status or otherwise of his actions. 

[Gray]

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?

 

First we need to establish that such a thing existed in Nauvoo or before 

[Gray]

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.

 

The marriage is the legal component. There was no legal component to any of these polygamous marriages. 

[omni]

Isn't it great to have such sharp hind sight? Why didn't you make some great investment decisions 5, 10 or 20 years ago? You would have been richer than Bill Gates or Donald Trump by now.

So I take it I stumped you with my questions.

[Jeanne]

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.

Was it practiced during that time?  Are your membership going to go home and study this out some more?  Be wise and share the truths of that time in the church or I fear it will come back to bite you..There is no faithful way to talk about this of course..but it is what it is and having people discuss it will be far better than to think that this essay was filtered out somehow.. that is taking two steps forward and three steps back.  I admire what you are doing..not easy I imagine but you are not accountable for how this will affect their belief system.  Just get it out there..over..and deal with it now. 

[ERayR]

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.

 

Go to a temple wedding.  The couple is first married and then they are sealed.  Both are done together but there is a distinct line of demarcation between the two.  In certain countries where the Church officials are not allowed to perform the marriage the couple is sealed together.  There is no marriage in the temple.

Edited August 28, 2015 by ERayR

[ERayR]

So I take it I stumped you with my questions.

 

No I thought they were inane and juvenile.

[ERayR]

The marriage is the legal component. There was no legal component to any of these polygamous marriages. 

 

Do you mean civil legality?

[ERayR]

How does one establish when Joseph was acting as a man and acting as a prophet exactly?  That age old question in Mormonism.  If you can answer that question then you might just settle more controversies than just polyandry.  If polyandry and polygamy were uninspired decisions on his part and were not part of his prophetic mandate, then it prompts further questions elsewhere as to the inspired status or otherwise of his actions. 

 

And what if we establish that they were inspired and given by revelation?

[ERayR]

Why not polyandry?? Why shouldn't women be given the same opportunities and choices? The only fall back is the discredited idea that polygamy created more children.  We do know that it was desirable to be linked to a person with high religious status. This way a woman could have that link regardless of who she was married to...with a side benefit that the first husband would also benefit from that linkage through his wife.  Polyandrous marriages could create dynastic webs more efficiently than polygynous marriages.

 

It certainly opens some interesting ideas and causes one to think about our current concept of family relationships.

[omni]

No I thought they were inane and juvenile.

I didn't think they were too bad. Why don't you take a stab at them?

[ERayR]

I didn't think they were too bad. Why don't you take a stab at them?

 

That would require that I give your assumptions behind the questions some validity.  I don't.

[Calm]

We know that at least one of those polyandrous marriages was consummated. 

 

 

Please explain.

[Calm]

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

There is however debate whether or not Zina considered herself married to Henry Jacobs at the time the consummation took place.  IIRC, she was being called by her maiden name.****  Will have to go check.  There may not have been an official divorce, but people in at least that part of the US at that time seemed to accept common law divorce as they would common law marriage.

 

OTOH, Zina was sealed to Joseph when she was pregnant with Henry's child and continued to live with him and she was resealed to JS and then sealed to BY for time on the same day (so probably with the idea of a levirate marriage) in the presence of Henry, so I am not saying that a polyandrous sealing did not take place with Zina.  

 

There is no doubt that the marriage of Henry and Zina dissolved at Mt. Pisgah; it was here for a very short time–just a matter of days–that they last lived together. Some authors and most critics see the dissolution of Henry and Zina’s marriage as a matter of imposing priesthood authority in the marital relationship, basing their conclusion–incorrectly, I believe–on a singular report that Brigham Young either commanded Henry to leave or made the leaving easier by calling him on a mission.....Fulfilling Zina’s expectations, in late September Brigham sent his son-in-law, Charlie Decker, to bring Zina to Winter Quarters.54 Sometime between the death of her father in mid August and her first weeks in Winter Quarters, it appears that Zina considered herself fully divorced from Henry and married to Brigham. This is evidenced by well-known facts, such as Zina moving into the tent row that Brigham provided for his wives at Winter Quarters. Sometime after arriving in Winter Quarters Zina wrote a letter to her step-sister, Emily Dow Partridge, and step-mother, Lydia Partridge Huntington, who were still in Mt. Pisgah. In the normal course of the letter Zina expressed Brigham’s love for Emily and signed the letter as “your affectionate sister Zina D. Huntington” instead of as Zina Jacobs.55

 

 

 

****Funny how memory can actually reverse things, this is the reference I remembered, it says the opposite...I probably got confused because she was sealed to Joseph with her maiden name even though she had been married five years and then to Brigham as Zina Diantha Smith, however as can be seen above she did sign her maiden name...this would be after the sealing and after moving in with BY's, but apparently she saw herself as in some fashion independent of both men:

In fact, Sessions continues to refer to Zina as either “Zina Jacobs” or “sister Jacobs” as late as June 3, 1847,38 which reference would seem unlikely if she had heard Brigham claim Zina (and her children) as his property and exile Henry.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-zina-and-her-men-an-examination-of-the-changing-marital-state-of-zina-diantha-huntington-jacobs-smith-young

 

PS:  just in case anyone is wondering, I have no problem with the idea of women having multiple sexual partners if it is okay that men have multiple sexual partners.  I don't see women any less able to be faithful and loving to multiple partners than men.

 

I don't understand why some people seem to see it as appropriate for it to happen with men but get all icked out when women do it.

 

Now how it is all supposed to work eternally...I have no clue, but it does seem that given the numbers of infant death rates, that it is unlikely that the Celestial Kingdom will be top heavy with women, so I think that monogamy will be the rule.

Edited August 29, 2015 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

We know that at least one of those polyandrous marriages was consummated. So obviously he didn't have some taboo about it.

 

Sooooo.

[ERayR]

There is however debate whether or not Zina considered herself married to Henry Jacobs at the time the consummation took place.  IIRC, she was being called by her maiden name.  Will have to go check.  There may not have been an official divorce, but people in at least that part of the US at that time seemed to accept common law divorce as they would common law marriage.

 

OTOH, Zina was sealed to Joseph when she was pregnant with Henry's child and continued to live with him and she was resealed to JS and then sealed to BY for time on the same day (so probably with the idea of a levirate marriage) in the presence of Henry, so I am not saying that a polyandrous sealing did not take place with Zina.  

 

I don't understand.  I do believe that there would be absolutely no problem with polygamy or polyandry if it could be assured there was no sex involved.  Joseph could have been married to a thousand and sealed to thousands more if there were assurances that there never was nor ever would be sex involved and there would be no problem.

[Calm]

The claim was that BY had sex with Zina Huntington in a polyandrous relationship.  I think the evidence demonstrates that Zina herself did not considered herself married to Henry Jacobs at the time she started living as a wife with BY.  She was definitely married to Henry when she was sealed to both Joseph and Brigham...I just don't think she can be used to demonstrate polyandrous relationships were also sexual.

 

Perhaps another wife would demonstrate that.  And it doesn't matter to me if she actually was sexually intimate with both or all of her husbands since all of her husbands willing participated in polygyny.  I just don't think she can be used as evidence in the context of the day with their practices of dissolution of marriages without going through the legal stuff we do today in every case.

 

I think it is inappropriate therefore to use Zina and Brigham's relationship as if it was given to be sexual polyandry.

 

I am looking forward to seeing what the DNA evidence is for Josephine Sessions if it is ever possible to test.  I think she is the best case for demonstrating sexual polyandry.

 

PS:  I think it is just as inappropriate to argue as a given there is no evidence for sexual polyandry.  I think there is evidence, just not proof.

Edited August 29, 2015 by calmoriah

[JulieM]

Thanks for all of that information, calmoriah. I think the study of Zina Huntington is pretty fascinating. I feel bad for her legal husband but it seems that many forget that Zina must have had a say in much of this too.

Here is what I found on Brigham's other polyandrous marriages. Do you believe any of them were sexual or were any children born from their relationships, do you know?

Here are the known polyandrous marriages of Brigham Young:

Lucy Ann Decker - Marriage: June 14, 1842 -- abandoned by non-Mormon husband William Seeley - not divorced

Augusta Adams - Marriage: November 2, 1843 -- married to non-mormon Henry Cobb, not divorced until 1847

Clarissa Blake (Morse) - Marriage: October 8, 1844 - widow of ? Morse - married to Lyman Homiston, not divorced

Mary Elizabeth Rollins - Marriage: May 22, 1845 - polyandrous wife of Joseph Smith, married to Adam Lightner, not divorced

Zina Diantha Huntington - Marriage: February 2, 1846 - polyandrous wife of Joseph Smith, married to Henry Bailey Jacobs, not divorced

Amy Cecelia Cooper - Marriage: February 3, 1846 - married to non-Mormon Joseph Aldrich and separated after marriage to B. Young

Lydia Farnsworth - Marriage: May 8, 1870 - married to Elijah Mayhew and remained with him

Hannah Tapfield - Marriage: December 8, 1872 - married to non-Mormon Thomas O. King and remained with him

Edited August 29, 2015 by JulieM

[Calm]

I am not familiar with anyone besides Zina (I know her because of the essay I linked to and checking the sources on that mainly, plus now that I know some about her, other info about her sticks in my head as it does for Helen Kimball, but no one else). Maybe in a week I will have time and attention to devote to these, until then I am way to scattered to focus for long to do actual research.

Perhaps someone else has info?

What I really want to know is the typical rate of termination of marriages that did not include legal divorce for various times and places over the more rural areas of the US as well as for various economic classes in the urban areas...if it costs money to get a legal divorce, I think a lot of the poorer population will be skipping it.

Edited August 29, 2015 by calmoriah