Teach About Polyandry Or Don't Mention It?

[Calm]

"Do you believe any of them were sexual or were any children born from their relationships, do you know?"

I will be surprised (but not shocked) if women still living with their legal husbands actually had sexual relationships, but only because the culture of both the Mormon community and the greater American community seems to be against it (BY required a couple to get legally divorced and the exhusband stay away from the woman while she married another man, had children, then divorced him and remarried her first husband) though originally they were against polygyny, but at least they had examples of that from the OT to point to.

I think it would be kind of cool if they did**** though as it might point to a belief of Joseph and Brigham's that the women were on a more equal footing than it currently appears to me, though this is not necessarily true.

From what I've read, most of the women would see themselves as no longer married if husband and wife agreed to split up even if nothing legal was done, especially anywhere a judge was not always available. While there would likely be a desire to have a legal divorce, I think most would accept the practicalities of the situation and not be willing to put their life on hold, especially if there were children involved. If a bishop or pastor could grant divorce as well as marry people, I think divorce would parallel commom law marriage closely as those who care enough to be officially married would, if possible put the same amount of effort into getting a divorce but this is pure speculation.

I need to read about the process BY went through in granting divorces for women given Utah for a time was the Nevada of that day for quick divorces, how much legality was involved.

****I am not for polygamy, I just think the more balance in the male-female relationships in a community, the better. In some ways I see polygyny achieving that as it expanded women's options in regards to marriage, but it also threw off the balance in other ways (more likely for an absentee father/husband though we need to separate those who did this by choice and those forced into it to avoid jailtime).

Edited August 29, 2015 by calmoriah

[cinepro]

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.

 

The question is whether or not there could ever be a situation in which a man and woman (not already related) could be "sealed" together but not have it be a marriage or adoption. 

 

Sure, people who are already legally married can be just sealed.  But since Joseph wasn't already legally married to these women before the sealings (or afterward, for that matter), you would be inventing a new and innovative sealing relationship that has heretofore been undiscovered.

[cinepro]

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. 

 

Well, even if Joseph didn't know it before the fact, he probably could have figured it out when God tells us that he commands people to engage in polygamy in order to have kids. 

 

I suspect that, in light of this verse, Joseph would have been more surprised had he been commanded to engage in polygamy and not have kids.

Edited August 29, 2015 by cinepro

[BCSpace]

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.

 

Of course there is a faithful way of teaching it.  Just teach the facts as we know them and the ONLY possible conclusion one can come to is that there is NO evidence whatsoever for any actual polyandrous relationships in JS's case as the world would see it and LDS critics hope for.  See my siggy on Joseph's polygamy.

Edited August 29, 2015 by BCSpace

[hagoth7]

Regardless of how you and your bishop choose to approach the two topics, God is frequently an iconoclast.

Daniel 2 is a clear indication of that.

His commandment to Hosea to marry a prostitute is a clear indication of that.

And so on.

 

That pattern bless the humble, who are willing to look beyond appearances.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/1-sam/16.7?lang=eng#6

 

His approach also sifts out the judgmental and arrogant who refuse to bend.

 

I don't pretend to know all the reasons for polygamy and polyandry, but I believe such a thing is but one of them.

Edited August 29, 2015 by hagoth7

[Jonahatw]

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

 

How are "we" going to establish that exactly?  By personal, subjective, unreliable and unverifiable feelings?  And by how many of us is it to be established?  Is it established if one person claims that '...it has been privately revealed to me that polygamy and polyandry were inspired of God'?  By more than one person?  How many?  Here's a pretty good gage for the "inspired" origin of polyandry/polygamy: how many times have you observed, from the chapel pulpit, testimony bearers include it among the list of things they "know" to be true/inspired/from God?  I think I know the answer.

[ALarson]

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 also appreciate all that you've posted regarding Zina, calmoriah.  But as far as I know Zina never did divorce Henry Jacobs (someone can correct me if I'm wrong).  So, I'm puzzled as to why you would not consider her polyandrous marriage to Brigham Young sexual polyandry since it produced a daughter?  Divorce was available back then, but is it because Zina simply didn't consider herself married to Henry anymore?  IMO, that doesn't change the fact that her marriage for time only to Brigham was still polyandrous.

[ALarson]

Of course there is a faithful way of teaching it.  Just teach the facts as we know them and the ONLY possible conclusion one can come to is that there is NO evidence whatsoever for any actual polyandrous relationships in JS's case as the world would see it and LDS critics hope for. 

I'm not sure why you'd state this.  That Joseph entered into polyandrous relationships is not being debated here.

 

It's even stated in the church essay that he did:

Following his marriage to Louisa Beaman and before he married other single women, Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married

.https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

I've been to plenty. You are wrong about this but I understand the confusion. There is no distinct line of demarcation between the marriage and sealing in the US ( I can't speak for how it is in other countries). As the sealer speaks he declares them legally married for time and eternity; and then continues with the sealing blessings. There is no new paragraph or even a new sentence. It's a continuation of the marriage and declaration of legal marriage as husband and wife. It's relational.

[ALarson]

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

Brigham had children with Lucy Ann Decker (7) and Zina Diantha Huntington (1), but I'd have to look up the others.  IIRC, several of these women still lived with their legal husbands and didn't move in with Brigham after he married them.

[Jeanne]

I also appreciate all that you've posted regarding Zina, calmoriah.  But as far as I know Zina never did divorce Henry Jacobs (someone can correct me if I'm wrong).  So, I'm puzzled as to why you would not consider her polyandrous marriage to Brigham Young sexual polyandry since it produced a daughter?  Divorce was available back then, but is it because Zina simply didn't consider herself married to Henry anymore?  IMO, that doesn't change the fact that her marriage for time only to Brigham was still polyandrous.

I agree.  If parties were willing participants..and still not polyandrous..orgies could be okay.?????  I can't see it a good thing legal, willing..or not.

[theplains]

If I'm not mistaken, Joseph’s plural wives included three pairs of sisters—Zina and Presendia

Huntington (both married), Emily and Eliza Partridge, and Maria and Sarah Lawrence. The

Bible forbids a man to take a woman and her sister as wives (Leviticus 18:18).

 

Regards,

Jim 

 

[carbon dioxide]

If I'm not mistaken, Joseph’s plural wives included three pairs of sisters—Zina and Presendia

Huntington (both married), Emily and Eliza Partridge, and Maria and Sarah Lawrence. The

Bible forbids a man to take a woman and her sister as wives (Leviticus 18:18).

 

Regards,

Jim 

One argument can be that rule is a law of Moses one and another one would be that how Joseph practiced polygamy was different than how it would normally be practiced.  If the sealings by Joseph Smith to his wives was primarily for celestial unions rather than the normal living with a bunch of wives and having kids with them, then the Lev 18:18 would not necessarily apply.

[ERayR]

How are "we" going to establish that exactly?  By personal, subjective, unreliable and unverifiable feelings?  And by how many of us is it to be established?  Is it established if one person claims that '...it has been privately revealed to me that polygamy and polyandry were inspired of God'?  By more than one person?  How many?  Here's a pretty good gage for the "inspired" origin of polyandry/polygamy: how many times have you observed, from the chapel pulpit, testimony bearers include it among the list of things they "know" to be true/inspired/from God?  I think I know the answer.

 

How do you establish that he wasn't?  Se we have the same problem coming from either direction.  You seem to come at this from the pov that it was not inspired. I was simply asking what if it was inspired?

[ERayR]

I've been to plenty. You are wrong about this but I understand the confusion. There is no distinct line of demarcation between the marriage and sealing in the US ( I can't speak for how it is in other countries). As the sealer speaks he declares them legally married for time and eternity; and then continues with the sealing blessings. There is no new paragraph or even a new sentence. It's a continuation of the marriage and declaration of legal marriage as husband and wife. It's relational.

 

There surely is.  Not all temple sealings involve marriages.  Many come for sealing after civil marriages, even in the USA.

For those who are previously married the sealer starts with the sealing part.  I think your confusion is that when they are done together the sealing is appended directly to the marriage. 

Edited August 29, 2015 by ERayR

[ERayR]

If I'm not mistaken, Joseph’s plural wives included three pairs of sisters—Zina and Presendia

Huntington (both married), Emily and Eliza Partridge, and Maria and Sarah Lawrence. The

Bible forbids a man to take a woman and her sister as wives (Leviticus 18:18).

 

Regards,

Jim 

 

Please explain Rachael and Leah. 

[Calm]

I also appreciate all that you've posted regarding Zina, calmoriah. But as far as I know Zina never did divorce Henry Jacobs (someone can correct me if I'm wrong). So, I'm puzzled as to why you would not consider her polyandrous marriage to Brigham Young sexual polyandry since it produced a daughter? Divorce was available back then, but is it because Zina simply didn't consider herself married to Henry anymore? IMO, that doesn't change the fact that her marriage for time only to Brigham was still polyandrous.

It appears to me that those concerned with the issue are defining polyandry in the cases where the first husband is not present not as solely having a legal relationship in place with two men even if there is no longer any actual behaviour that indicates a marriage relationship is still in effect for one. The conversation does not focus for example on whether the woman should be arrested tried for bigamy or adultery. There would have in their culture been a significant stigma attached to a woman being a bigamist. I think it is essential in our discussions if we want to understand motivations for relationships and even the relationships themselves to define relationships in the same manner as the culture did at the time.

Zina could have easily obtained a legal divorce considering the legal standing of BY at least in the territories, if not from the moment she moved into the household of BY and yet we have no record of her even attempting to do so. We also have no record of anyone treating her as an adulterer. There is no record that I know of that demonstrates the community did not consider Zina married to BY once she started living with him as a wife, there is no evidence of shaming or derogatory remarks (and we don't lack for public insults in other cases so it doesn't seem there was a natural reluctance to engage in such things).

I think out of respect for the culture as well as to ensure there isn't misunderstanding among those who jump into the discussion without that background that we avoid using terms that contradict how the community viewed the relationships. In the case of Zina and Henry Jacobs, it seems clear to me the community viewed her as no longer married to Henry Jacobs, therefore it should no longer be viewed as polyandrous once she separated herself and her children from Jacobs. Jacobs himself did not try to shame her in the letters he wrote to return to him by suggesting she was living as a bigamist, etc. though I believe he expressed his continuing love for her (need to doublecheck that) which it seems to me in that culture would have been a powerful tool available to him if it actually applied.

It occurs to me the easiest way to show if there was considered any legal relationship between Zina and Henry continuing is to look at what occurred at their deaths with any inheritance or even in the obituaries. What do the documents say about it? Anyone know?

I am curious...if a sealing had taken place as we know it did while she was still living with Jacobs, but instead of Zina moving out of Jacobs' home and into her father's and then after his death, moving into BY's household, if what had happened was the death of Jacob instead of her father, would you still consider her polyandrously married to both Brigham and Henry at the time of her pregnancy with Brigham and her duaghter? Zina and the community from what I've read seems to treat her marriage with Henry as ended as final as any marriage at death would be (since she wasn't sealed to him).

There are two reasons I am taking yours and my time to dwell on this aspect of the discussion. First and foremost, I respect Zina enough to attempt to describe her life as accurately as possible just as I would hope others would care enough about me to put effort into getting facts straight. It is not that I think it would be shameful for her to have been viewed by her culture as married to Henry and living with Brigham (because I believe she was attempting to live the revelation of plural marriage as well as she understood it)...though it likely her community would have if they viewed it that way. Brigham after all required extreme legal measures when a family wanted to have more children and could not because the dad had made himself a eunuch because of their faith before conversion. Why would he care to do less for his own relationships if he saw any potential confusion over morality happening with them?

Second, I think it is important to the discussion to make the difference because the argument is occurring because people are questioning the morality of the polyandrous relationships. If no one cares if they existed if no sexual relationships occurred (which iirc was said earlier in the thread but I may be confusing it with another conversation), then we should be very careful to establish what the relationship was actually viewed by those involved and the surrounding community imo and use that as our baseline to explore their beliefs and how they put them into practice.

Edited August 29, 2015 by calmoriah

[cinepro]

There surely is.  Not all temple sealings involve marriages.  Many come for sealing after civil marriages, even in the USA.

For those who are previously married the sealer starts with the sealing part.  I think your confusion is that when they are done together the sealing is appended directly to the marriage. 

 

Uh..of course a Temple Sealing between two people who are already married doesn't involve an additional "marriage".  They're already married.

 

That's not what you are saying.  You are implying that it would have been possible for Joseph to be sealed to women to whom he wasn't "married" without that sealing also being a "marriage".

 

In other words, it would be like a single man showing up to the Temple with a single woman and asking that they be sealed together but not be "married" (or adopted).  I do not believe this is possible, but perhaps someone who has worked in a Temple or has better knowledge of such things could set me straight.  But what would that sealing even mean?  Other than familial relationships (husband-wife/ parent-child), what possible link is there for sealed people in the hereafter?  How creative do we really want to get?

 

That would also mean that it would be possible for current married LDS men to be sealed to other women and have it not be polygamy.  Does anyone really believe that?

 

In order to be "sealed", you have to be legally married, or legally parented.  There's no "other" category, and apologists don't just get to make one up because it is convenient.

Edited August 29, 2015 by cinepro

[Tacenda]

I think they are trying to say they're familial sealings. Say he's sealed as brother and sister. But think some were probably not this way. ETA: Maybe JS was known as a God in a kingdom, being built on the earth. People that were married already wanted to be saved in it. They wanted to be part of it. Maybe beyond the live polygamy law, why not get there even faster. And be sealed/married to JS. The husbands had instant hierarchal status, no wonder they didn't get too upset.

I'm reading some history about when Alvin died, many things were whirling around about being saved or going to hell, from preachers. Joseph offered a different approach. Or a better path.

The above is just some thoughts.

Oh another thought, these women didn't have to share their first husbands...pretty smart.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Tacenda

[JulieM]

calmoriah, I did read that Zina cared for Henry when he was sick and up until his death. I think this was after Brigham had passed away too. I'll see if I can find where I read that as I was doing some searching about Zina and Henry. I believe it was a family member (g-g-granddaughter maybe) who wrote about that.

[webbles]

I also appreciate all that you've posted regarding Zina, calmoriah.  But as far as I know Zina never did divorce Henry Jacobs (someone can correct me if I'm wrong).  So, I'm puzzled as to why you would not consider her polyandrous marriage to Brigham Young sexual polyandry since it produced a daughter?  Divorce was available back then, but is it because Zina simply didn't consider herself married to Henry anymore?  IMO, that doesn't change the fact that her marriage for time only to Brigham was still polyandrous.

Maybe we need to define what a polyandrous marriage is?  I don't see Zina and Brigham as being polyandrous because she left Henry (or if you want, was forced to leave by Brigham) and moved in with Brigham.  Sure she didn't get a legal divorce but she wasn't with both (unlike Joseph's, Zina's, and Henry's relationship).  If we want to define a polyandrous relationship as one where a woman marries a man, leaves him (without a divorce) and moves in with another man, I'm betting we'll find a lot of those types of marriages throughout all of the United States at that time and including today.

[Calm]

JulieM, I would be interested to read that. I think it is evidence but not very strong given that I know of several cases of women who have taken in men who they have been legally divorced from because of hardship for their exhusband...and exhusbands still helping out exwives when asked. I would hope that Zina would continue to care for a man who she had once committed herself to and who was the father of some of her children. Henry parted with his other wives iirc on less than amicable terms and Zina was in a position where she could help if I remember correctly.

Edited August 29, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Maybe we need to define what a polyandrous marriage is? I don't see Zina and Brigham as being polyandrous because she left Henry (or if you want, was forced to leave by Brigham) and moved in with Brigham. Sure she didn't get a legal divorce but she wasn't with both (unlike Joseph's, Zina's, and Henry's relationship).

She was for a short period of time. She was resealed to Joseph after his death and then sealed on the same day for time to Brigham Young with Henry Jacobs as a witness, but she didn't immediately move into Brigham's household or even her father's. This came later, though not much (within a year iirc).

It is of course possible that during this time she had a sexual reltionship with Brigham, but there is no evidence of it unlike there is later where she has a daughter with him.

Polyandry does appear to be defined differently by different people and it can be confusing. I think it is important to define it so that it won't confuse those who do not have the time (or take it) to get into the history deep, but be easily understood for the implications that are the most important in the discussion.

Which seems to me to be if there were concurrent sexual relationships that women were having with both their legally/community viewed married husbands and men they were sealed to.

Edited August 29, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Webbles, isn't it in your family line where Brigham instructed a couple to get legally divorced and for the wife to remarry another man in order to have additional children? And then she divorced and remarried her first husband. I find the story very touching for the example of love it demonstrates.

Sorry if I got you mixed up with another poster.

The care that Brigham insisted be taken for this couple (who weren't iirc exactly in the middle of an urban area) to avoid any suggestion of a polyandrous relationship seems to indicate he would act as assertively if there was any suggestion of such in his own life...and yet there is no record of it. And he certainly had access to legal avenues if needed.

Edited August 29, 2015 by calmoriah

[ALarson]

Maybe we need to define what a polyandrous marriage is?  I don't see Zina and Brigham as being polyandrous because she left Henry (or if you want, was forced to leave by Brigham) and moved in with Brigham.  Sure she didn't get a legal divorce but she wasn't with both (unlike Joseph's, Zina's, and Henry's relationship).  If we want to define a polyandrous relationship as one where a woman marries a man, leaves him (without a divorce) and moves in with another man, I'm betting we'll find a lot of those types of marriages throughout all of the United States at that time and including today.

Zina still lived as Henry's wife after she married Brigham (or was sealed to him for time only).  Zina was sealed to Brigham on February 2, 1846.  She left Nauvoo after this with Henry to go out west. She gave birth to Henry's son in March.  Brigham called Henry on a mission and he left in May (around the same time that he and Zina separated).  So, it's not as simple as a woman leaving her husband and moving in with another man.

 

I really don't want this thread to turn into a discussion about Zina, Henry and Brigham though (I know I've contributed to this too).  Maybe another thread should be started on this topic?

 

I do think it's important to identify what people really consider polyandry to be and which marriages of Joseph's and Brigham's were polyandrous.

 

I do believe that Zina's marriage to Brigham was polyandrous, but it's quite possible it wasn't consummated until after she left Henry.

 

ETA:

Everything I've read so far states that Zina never did divorce Henry.  I'd be interested to see what sources there are for this (either way). 

Edited August 29, 2015 by ALarson