Teach About Polyandry Or Don't Mention It?

[Calm]

In terms of going through legal proceedings before a judge with divorce papers etc. I would agree with you.

In terms of the community viewing her as no longer married to Henry, I wouldn't (if you think they did). They stop referring to her as Mrs. Jacobs, there is no scandal that I know of within the community, that kind of thing.

Considering what was going on at the time, do we have many records of legal proceedings for divorce taking place among the Saints? Could it be the turmoil either prevented them from going by the legal rules so they accepted the more casual approach or could it be records were lost?

Edited August 29, 2015 by calmoriah

[Rain]

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.

There is a case within my family where a child was sealed, but not legally related or adopted, to parents. This happened within the last 10 years. I was present at the sealing. That's all I can share about it.

Second hand knowledge so it could just be a rumor, I've been told of a couple were sealed, but not married after one of them was hit and killed on the way to the temple.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Rain

[webbles]

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.

Yeah, that's me.  It is Mary Ann Richardson, Edward Richardson, and Fredrick Cox.

[Calm]

Glad to know my memory functions at least some.

[omni]

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.

I'm not understanding the point of all this. So you're okay with Joseph taking another man's wife and being sealed to her for eternity just as long as he didn't have any marital relations with her in this life?

[omni]

In terms of going through legal proceedings before a judge with divorce papers etc. I would agree with you.

In terms of the community viewing her as no longer married to Henry, I wouldn't (if you think they did). They stop referring to her as Mrs. Jacobs, there is no scandal that I know of within the community, that kind of thing.

Considering what was going on at the time, do we have many records of legal proceedings for divorce taking place among the Saints? Could it be the turmoil either prevented them from going by the legal rules so they accepted the more casual approach or could it be records were lost?

I've heard from a few missionaries who served in South/Latin America about the difficulty they had with common law marriages and divorces. From my understanding it's very common for couples to have lived to together for years and not be married due to the strict divorce laws and a culture of common law marriages.

The missionaries I spoke with were required to wait till the investigator was married before they were allowed to be baptized - no exceptions. I would think if an investigator is held to that standard we could expect a prophet to be held to at least an equal standard.

[Calm]

I personally don't think they are necessarily right in all cases if it is always insisted upon (I had actually heard in one place exceptions were being made and the person thought that was inappropriate, it was only rumor so I have no idea if it was true).  For me it would depend on why their previous marriage broke up and if there was no option to appeal to law in order to get a divorce.

 

I had a bishop give permission for a man that had no intention of quitting heavy smoking to be baptized.  It was an appropriate exception to the rule because that man used smoking as a painkiller for his significant physical disabilities and the doctors had informed him quitting and attempting to use something else would kill him.  Now some would claim that was a lack of faith, I consider it an act of compassion for a man who had little in his life and very much wanted to be baptized to confirm his faith in Christ and the Atonement.  He died three months after his baptism.  It might not have made the least bit different to the Church for him not to be baptized, he may not have paid any tithing since he got money from the government to live on, but it was very important to him.

 

Not really on point, just saying even church leaders agree that exceptions to the rules are appropriate at times for any member, not just the leadership.

 

I also think it sounds like it probably comparing apples and oranges but I would have to be more familiar with both cultures and the practices to be sure.

 

Do you believe that all cultures around the world should be treated identically by church leadership?

Edited August 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[cinepro]

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).

 

This was a good discussion on the topic...

 

The Misinformation Around Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young

 

And this one...

[cinepro]

Yeah, that's me.  It is Mary Ann Richardson, Edward Richardson, and Fredrick Cox.

I love that story...

The case of Mary Ann Darrow Richardson is another one that’s promoted by Larry Foster. He mentioned this in his presentation in Calgary at MHA. In 1840 Mary Ann Dorrow marries Edward Richardson. Sometime prior to 1853 they become members of a church that says two children are all that you should have, and he submits to a sterilization procedure. They are baptized, and in 1857, they are sealed. In 1858 Edward and Mary Ann want to have children in the covenant. Brigham Young says the only way you can do that, is to get a civil divorce, where Mary Ann marries Fredrick Cox legally. Fredrick Cox didn’t want to do it, by the way. But Brigham prevailed upon Fredrick to do this, and Edward moves out of town. The evidence is strong that she’s not living with both husbands. She has two children by 1861, there’s a legal divorce from Fredrick Cox, and then there’s a legal marriage to Edward Richardson.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-joseph-smiths-sexual-polyandry-and-the-emperors-new-clothes-on-closer-inspection-what-do-we-find

[cinepro]

There is a case within my family where a child was sealed, but not legally related or adopted, to parents. This happened within the last 10 years. I was present at the sealing. That's all I can share about it.

Second hand knowledge so it could just be a rumor, I've been told of a couple were sealed, but not married after one of them was hit and killed on the way to the temple.

But again, what could such a sealing mean? In what way could a man and woman be "sealed" in the eternities if it's not in a parental or marriage relationship? What other relationship needs to be "sealed"? Certainly we can be friends with people in the eternities without needing a priesthood ordinance performed.  Sure, it's great to be a sibling to someone, but there isn't much eternal significance to who your "brother" or "sister" is in a spiritual sense. 

 

Here's the real test.  If anyone actually believes there could be such a thing as non-marriage sealings and non-adoptive sealings, why wouldn't it be possible for two men to present themselves at the Temple and ask to be sealed to each other?   Even when such sealings were practiced in the 1800s, it was called "The Law of Adoption" and the men were sealed as father/son.

Edited August 30, 2015 by cinepro

[omni]

Do you believe that all cultures around the world should be treated identically by church leadership?

Not necessarily, I think it would benefit the church if they allowed services to be tailored (to some degree) towards the individual cultures around the world, especially with regards to policy matters as opposed to foundational doctrines.

I think your example of the bishop and the convert who smoked was a great example of someone living the greater law. He was able to grant this man his dying wish, even though it may have been against policy. I can't imagine God being upset with his choice.

Back to BY and Zina, I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where) that the Utah territory had some of the most liberal divorce laws in the country. This wasn't from an anti-Mormon source, but was instead used to defend the church against critics who claimed that polygamous wives were "trapped" in their marriages. If this is indeed true, then I don't think it supports your theory that Zina didn't get an official divorce from Jacob due to the difficulty of the divorce laws at the time. In fact, If I remember correctly, the first five prophets of the church all had divorces.

[JulieM]

If this is indeed true, then I don't think it supports your theory that Zina didn't get an official divorce from Jacob due to the difficulty of the divorce laws at the time. In fact, If I remember correctly, the first five prophets of the church all had divorces.

I think I read that here (about many of the first Prophets having been divorced). One of the Prophets was divorced from his first, legal wife but iirc, the rest were divorces involving polygamous wives.

Edited August 30, 2015 by JulieM

[Calm]

This wasn't from an anti-Mormon source, but was instead used to defend the church against critics who claimed that polygamous wives were "trapped" in their marriages. If this is indeed true, then I don't think it supports your theory that Zina didn't get an official divorce from Jacob due to the difficulty of the divorce laws at the time. In fact, If I remember correctly, the first five prophets of the church all had divorces.

But she didn't start living as a wife to Brighan in Utah, but at Winter Quarter's or there about. It would appear that whatever took place in severing the relationship with Henry and moving her relationship with Brigham into an exclusive one occurred during this time and was accepted as final by the time she got to Utah as there were no records of her being called Mrs. Jacobs after her entry into Utah.

That is the reason I would love to know if we have any records of actual divorces during the transition from Nauvoo to Utah. Did the upheaval of that time period interfere with getting them done or were records lost or did things proceed just fine for most? And were there any repeat ordinances or legal work done once they were more settled.

Bottomline for me is that the community didn't treat her as having two husbands even when the other plural relationships were known. It wasn't as if her marriage with Henry wasn't well known. But there is nothing questioning if she was a bigamist, etc. Whether it was legal or not, the people involved in the relationship and aware of it do not appear to have any conception of it being a polyandrous one by the time her daughter was born.

It seems to me if the issue is questioning what the relationship was, we should look to the people of the era to tell us.

[carbon dioxide]

I'm not understanding the point of all this. So you're okay with Joseph taking another man's wife and being sealed to her for eternity just as long as he didn't have any marital relations with her in this life?

If the man is not bothered by it and the wife is ok with it, why should it bother you?  I am sure the Lord would compensate him in the eternities.  In the end, all will be well for everyone involved.  We need to not look at our children and spouses as our property.  They are not our property.

[ALarson]

I think I read that here (about many of the first Prophets having been divorced). One of the Prophets was divorced from his first, legal wife but iirc, the rest were divorces involving polygamous wives.

That was Joseph F. Smith (the 6th President of the Church) who was divorced from his first wife, Levira Smith.  

Edited August 30, 2015 by ALarson

[ALarson]

If the man is not bothered by it and the wife is ok with it, why should it bother you?  

How do you know the husbands weren't bothered by it?  Look at what took place with Parley P. Pratt or his brother Orson.  

 

It needs to be taken on a case by case basis.

[omni]

If the man is not bothered by it and the wife is ok with it, why should it bother you?

From a legal aspect I'm not bothered by it, but that doesn't mean I believe it to be morally correct or that God commanded it.

From the church's perspective, two consenting individuals engaging in an activity has never been the barometer for what is considered sin. Take an unmarried loving, God fearing, church-going couple who happens to be in a sexual relationship. In the eyes of the church, they are committing the sin next to murder.

[theplains]

Please explain Rachael and Leah. 

 

He was manipulated by the father. It was not a commandment from God.

 

Regards,

Jim

[theplains]

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.

 

The Book of Mormon says, “there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and

concubines he shall have none,” unless God commands it to “raise up seed unto me” (Jacob

2:27-30). Since Joseph did not take plural wives to raise up seed (he had just two or three

children by his thirty to forty plural wives), his polygamy was contrary to the Book of Mormon.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Calm]

He was manipulated by the father. It was not a commandment from God.

 

He was not married to Rachel at the same time. He was married first to Leah and then chose to married Rachel.

Was Jacob breaking a commandment when he made that choice?

[provoman]

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.

The absence of evidence is the evidence of absence?

Edited August 30, 2015 by provoman

[carbon dioxide]

The Book of Mormon says, “there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and

concubines he shall have none,” unless God commands it to “raise up seed unto me” (Jacob

2:27-30). Since Joseph did not take plural wives to raise up seed (he had just two or three

children by his thirty to forty plural wives), his polygamy was contrary to the Book of Mormon.

 

Regards,

Jim

I think that is generally true however suppose for a moment that an infertile man has more than one wife.  Is he going against the command as clearly he can't raise up any seed.  He is infertile.  I do believe in exceptions to the rule

[juliann]

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). 

Where I start to have problems with what is "real" polyandry vs "real" polygyny are the different rules. No one questions that a man is married to all of his wives if he doesn't live with all of them. Yet when a woman only lives with one husband at a time it is considered proof that there is no "real" polyandry. 

 

So why the different standard of proof? Also, these ridiculous lines in the sand are drawn when it comes to women. It's not "real" polyandry if she only lives with one husband because we all know that women would never go visit the husband they weren't living with. Apparently only men do that for wives who don't live with them on a regular basis. So using this logic....we all know that a childless polygynous wife never had sex with her husband if she didn't live with him. And here we thought that she just couldn't conceive!

 

Since we all know that women don't travel to see their husbands and we know this because we know where they were at every minute of every day....I wonder how much time has to elapse between husbands to make it not "real." What if she had sex the day she moved out and the day she moved in with the new one? Oh, that sounds like polyandry. But if there was a week in between it wouldn't count? How many minutes have to elapse so it isn't polyandry?

[Calm]

I would definitely look on the Zina Huntington case differently if Henry hadn't been on a mission that allows for a more definite point of termination of their relationship.  It is a nitpicker thing for me, not a principle I am defending.

 

And iirc, there were some missionaries that had their wives come out and meet with them during their mission.  Henry wrote letters though so it doesn't look like that happened with him and Zina.  And it feels so final by the time he comes back, he misses her in his letters, there is that sense of long term separation.

 

I am making no claims for what went on before she moved out of his household though, either with Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.  I definitely agree women could visit another house as easily as a man could, even if traveling on their own across country might have raised some eyebrows (or is that my ignorance showing and my assuming that is wrong?).

 

There is a case where Hales says there was no physical relationship because of separation, but the separation is only documented for a short time iirc (few weeks) and there is no evidence they did not live together again once he came back to Nauvoo.  Will have to go look at details to be sure.  I don't think it was Sister Sessions.  IIRC, with her the claim is that Joseph would have only had a physical relationship with her when she was separated for a time from her first husband, but she had children by him, got sealed to Joseph and then had more children by her first husband.  In that case, I am not going to claim there is good reason not to call it a sexual polyandrous marriage.  There was no remarriage ceremony that I know of and I do believe they were more careful with marriage than they were with divorce, though I should study up on that more before making that claim. 

 

Like you said, how much time does it take to make it a case of serial marriages instead of concurrent?  For me it is dependent on attitude more than time.  If it can demonstrated that they looked upon themselves or were looked upon when it was public knowledge as only married to one man at a particular time, then I think it wiser to say there was no sexual polyandry even if there is no record of a legal divorce.  OTOH, if there is evidence that the relationship carried on or lack of evidence that an attitude shift occurred, I think the default position would be to label it as possibly polyandry in their eyes.  Without definite evidence, I think we need to leave open the possibility that they did draw these lines of married to only one man each time even when it looks messy, but possibility is as far as I am willing to go.  Joseph broke a lot of taboos and those who followed him accepted the new rules.  I don't think we can say "he wouldn't go there" without more than just what we would think he would do.  We haven't had the chance to know him that well.

 

The only thing that makes me wonder if sexual polyandry is out of the question is how Brigham treated the Richardson family situation.  But perhaps that was because of problems that occurred for himself and Joseph and he felt it was more appropriate if able to avoid it.

Edited August 31, 2015 by calmoriah

[juliann]

I'm just talking in general, Cal. I think there is more info about Zina than a lot of the others so you are probably right on that one.  But I also think that polyandry would be a lot more closeted than polygyny for obvious reasons.

 

As for the Richardson case which is used to "prove" women weren't allowed two partners, I find it very quaint to think that Mrs. Richardson left home and never saw her husband for years until she returned with strange kids who were now supposed to call him dad. It just seems highly unlikely.