Teach About Polyandry Or Don't Mention It?

[BCSpace]

The absence of evidence is the evidence of absence?

 

The absence of evidence is no proof of the accusation.

[webbles]

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.

It was actually Edmund that left the house. He went to the Tintic area and worked during the separation. They were apart for about 3 years. She stayed behind in their home with their two oldest. He sent her money and they wrote to each other.

On a side note, I happened to come a cross statement in a history for Fredrick Cox on familysearch.org that says: "From the director of personal records in Salt Lake we find that other marriages similar to this were performed by Brigham Young." Maybe the Richardson's and Cox's relationship wasn't as unique as I thought.

Edited August 31, 2015 by webbles

[Calm]

http://oscox.org/richardson/maryanndrichardson.html

In accordance with his authority as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints & as Governor of the State of Utah, Brigham Young granted Mary Ann Darrow Richardson a civil divorce from her husband, Edmund Richardson. On 9 January 1858, he performed a civil marriage between Mary Ann & Frederick Walter Cox. (Record of this marriage is on file in the Archives at Salt Lake City, Utah).

Because any children from this marriage were to be raised for Edmund Richardson, & also as protection for Brother Cox during the polygamist persecution, Mary Ann retained the Richardson surname & lived in the Richardson home. Edmund voluntarily sent regular checks, or alimony, to support his family, & Mary Ann planned to continue weaving.

THE LONG NIGHT

The separation was bearable to the Richardson's only because it was mutually imposed for the high purpose of Eternal increase & that the plan was sanctioned by the Prophet of the Lord.

As Mary Ann watched Edmund drive away into the loneliness of the next few years, she whispered these words after him: "Greater love hath no man than this, that he giveth his life for another."

She then turned resolutely to her loom & the task of weaving the tapestry of her own purposeful trust.

Edmund's separation might have sent him to Oregon, or back to Vermont, seeking solace, but this did not meet his purpose. His well-laid plans led him to the Tintic mining district seeking employment nearer home.

The world of Tintic District was very different from that of Manti. Edmund was greeted, not with words of welcome as he had as a newcomer to Manti, but with cursing & swearing as the common language.

It was a time of relief & rejoicing when he got this message from Mary Ann. "Our son, born 13 October 1858, will be named Charles Edmund Richardson." Like Adam & Eve, they can say, "We have gotten a son of the Lord." With this added incentive, Edmund closed the deal for a four-acre lot containing an orchard, a garden spot, & a home in Springville, Utah. This he kept as a surprise for Mary Ann. A second son, Sullivan Calvin Richardson was born 26 January 1861 in Manti.

Shortly after Sullie's birth (Sullivan), Chief Walker returned to Manti & staged another of his victory celebrations. Horrified at the cruelties heaped upon Walker's numerous child captives, many Manti families ransomed one or two & took them into their homes. Mary Ann emptied her loom to buy a little baby boy, & immediately gave him a place in her heart.

THE REUNION

Out of the loneliness & the turmoil of Tintic, Edmund returned to reclaim Mary Ann. The reunion with her, Emma Lynette, George, & three new sons she presented him were worth the sacrifices they had made, he thought. There was a variety of hair coloring in her gift. One son had red hair, another blond curls, & the third had straight black hair. The joy they brought, however, was not dependent on the hair coloring. The Indian baby's life ended not long afterwards in fever & convulsions.

When Edmund & Mary Ann were remarried, he surprised her with the gift of the lot & home in Springville. (Frederick Walter Cox & Mary Ann were granted a civil divorce.) Edmund explained that he had made some furniture & sent it overland from Tintic. "However, it cannot equal the gifts you gave me," he explained, "but it will furnish all of you with a home."

Before leaving Manti, the Richardson�s attended a dancing party given by Frederick Walter Cox & his four wives, which was held in the large room of the unfinished "Cox Big House". The house was begun early in 1860.

A NEW BEGINNING

Mary Ann's appreciation of the Springville lot & orchard was all Edmund had hoped it would be. But her response to the surprise she found inside the house was even more rewarding. Upon entering, she found Charles Edmund rocking a lovely cradle, which his father had made for Sullie, & George was trying out the dining table & chairs.

Then she saw the beautiful chest of drawers. The strength of its work & the precision-cut lines immediately identified with Edmund. She stood silent before its personification of the loneliness & pain of his long exile; mitigated only by hope, love, & faith in the high purpose of eternal increase. Reverently she stroked its polished surface. As she turned from the chest to thank her husband & share the understanding, which she, too, had learned, he lifted Charles Edmund to its polished surface & encircled both wife & child in his arms. Together they thanked the Lord that He had helped them pay the price for their two sons.

Edmund immediately began building a new brick home facing west on Main Street which runs North & South. In the back yard he dug a well, curbed & roofed it, & supplied it with a rope & pulley. Near the kitchen door he built a 100 loaf capacity oven. With this, he opened the first bakery in Springville. In the rear of the lot Edmund built a fine barn. The logs were hewn on both sides so that they fit closely together without leaving much of a crack. Each of the logs, both vertical & horizontal, was pinned with a wooden peg which Edmund had whittled. The logs forming the roof were so strong that years later, a modern hayfork was installed in the barn without additional reinforcement. For nearly eighty years the barn stood as a proud witness to the skill & character of its builder. Some of the pegs are still in existence.

The Richardson�s did some mining & farming, besides raising livestock & poultry, & operating the bakery. As Sullie later remarked, "Because of Pa's fine planning to provide for us & Ma's weaving, we enjoyed food & conveniences which many others were denied."

[HappyJackWagon]

ALarson, do you have a report? How was the lesson received?

[ALarson]

ALarson, do you have a report? How was the lesson received?

Yes, I was going to just start a new thread since this one seems to be discussing other things now and also because the discussion yesterday involved mainly polygamy rather than polyandry.  It was very interesting and I'll post this morning about it.  My Bishop did a great job and he was even able to get some stats as to what members (at least from our ward) knew about Joseph's polygamy prior to reading the essay last week.

Edited August 31, 2015 by ALarson

[Gray]

Please explain.

 

Sylvia Sessions was one of Joseph Smith's polyandrous wives. She was legally married to Windsor Lyon when she was sealed to Joseph Smith as his wife. Sylvia named her daughter Josephine because she believed that the father was Joseph Smith. Obviously she would not have had that belief had her relationship with Joseph been platonic. 

[thesometimesaint]

Sylvia Sessions was one of Joseph Smith's polyandrous wives. She was legally married to Windsor Lyon when she was sealed to Joseph Smith as his wife. Sylvia named her daughter Josephine because she believed that the father was Joseph Smith. Obviously she would not have had that belief had her relationship with Joseph been platonic. 

 

Not necessarily. My son adopted the little girl from his wife's former marriage. She turn 22 years old today. Happy Birthday Aubry.    He is for all intents and purposes his daughter, and my Granddaughter.

[Calm]

Sylvia Sessions was one of Joseph Smith's polyandrous wives. She was legally married to Windsor Lyon when she was sealed to Joseph Smith as his wife. Sylvia named her daughter Josephine because she believed that the father was Joseph Smith. Obviously she would not have had that belief had her relationship with Joseph been platonic.

While I believe this is highly likely, one has only to read about relationships of sealing to get that it might be just that. And there were a number of Don Carloses born and I doubt he was the father of any of them so I don't see the name thing as that big of a deal.

However, why wait then until she is dying to tell her daughter that? That is heavy evidence towards Joseph as father. And were there younger kids than Josephine who would have fallen under the same sealing principle if that was the reason...need to recheck that, can't remember.

Eventually I believe some form of DNA testing will be available for following female children of males so this question can be settled.

[Calm]

http://www.bountifulutah.gov/HistoricalCommission/FisherJR01.html

The above is a description of Josephine's family from the family's POV. She was the last child of Winsor or only child of Joseph. Her mother remarried a nonmember, Clark, and had more kids. She eventually went to Utah without him, though he set her up well for the trip apparently (wonder if they got an official divorce). The Clark kids would have definitely been Joseph's under the sealing, so if that was so why would there be any confusion so that her mother felt the need to tell her?

Not definite, but very close for me.

Hales, iirc, reasons based on accepting her as Joseph's child but denies it was sexual polyandry based on the alleged separation of Winsor and Sylvia. I reject that for the same grounds as Juliann does. If wives could go for months without seeing husbands and still be considered sister wives with others he was married to, then a few weeks or even months doesn't change things.

If there was an expectation that Winsor would not return....maybe. But I would think more time would needed to be sure. Course she could have been royalled pissed at him leaving, but they got back together so it seems unlikely such certainty would be more than fleeting and if that was the only reason she accepted Joseph...well, it seems unlikely to me.

Hales uses Andrew Jenson's description of Sylvia as "formerly the wife of Windsor Lyons" for evidence that they were unofficially divorced....but that doesn't follow imo since Hales then stayes they were back together when he got rebaptized, nor is there any record of a remarriage to suggest they believed they were divorced. The language can be explained by her later marriage to Clark.

"Hales states, "No details are available to clarify what authority was used to reconfirm the marriage relationship between Sylvia and Windsor after their previous marital separation. Most likely the couple consulted with Brigham Young or Heber C. Kimball, who authorized their rejoining. Whether a private religious marriage ceremony for time was performed or the couple resumed observing their legal marriage is unknown. Importantly, even with the renewed conjugality between Windsor and Sylvia after Joseph Smith’s death, no evidence has been found to support her involvement in sexual polyandry at any time.""

Got this from the FM page on Josephine.

The problem here is that no evidence has been found against it either. He assumes an authorization takes place when all it might have been was Windsor walking in and saying "I'm sorry". And there is, I understand the assumption of a physical separation while he was excommunicated that may or may not have occurred. I remember as it just being based on his reasoning that Windsor owned some other property in town he could stay at.

From Hales' site:

Currently, no documentation of a legal divorce between Windsor and Sylvia after his excommunication has been found. However, in the mid-nineteenth century, religious laws often trumped legal proceedings. Stanley B. Kimball observed: “Some church leaders at that time considered civil marriage by non-Mormon clergymen to be as unbinding as their baptisms. Some previous marriages . . . were annulled simply by ignoring them.”

Todd Compton agreed, “Joseph regarded marriages performed without Mormon priesthood authority as invalid, just as he regarded baptisms performed without Mormon priesthood authority as invalid.”

A review of Sylvia’s child-bearing chronology suggests that she and Windsor were not cohabiting during the period he was out of the Church.

Three children were conceived during the four-and-a-half years prior to his excommunication and two during the first two years after his rebaptism. The only child conceived during the three-plus years of his Church estrangement was Josephine. Historian Kathryn Daynes has reasoned, “If Sessions knew that Fisher was Joseph Smith’s biological child . . .  she could have been having sexual relations only with Smith, not with Windsor Lyon. . . . She could be certain of her child’s paternity only if she restricted her sexual relationship to one husband at a time.”...

"The question exists whether Windsor, after his excommunication, moved back in with Sylvia and continued conjugal relations with her. Windsor must have returned to Nauvoo within weeks. However, a review of available historical documents from 1842–1844 provides a few references to Sylvia or Windsor in Nauvoo, but they do not describe them as being together. For example, on September 18, William Clayton recorded: “Joseph and I rode out to borrow money, drank wine at Sister Lyons. P.M. I got $50 of Sister Lyons and paid it to D.D. Yearsley.”

24

Another example is found with the Partridge daughters, Emily and Eliza, who needed new lodging in the latter half of 1843. Emily wrote: “My sister Eliza found a home with the family of Brother Joseph Coolidge, and I went to live with Sister Sylvia Lyons.”

Land records for Nauvoo show that Windsor owned a store with attached living quarters, as well as a house located less than a block away that was later converted to a store.

It is possible that the couple was separated but lived close to each other so Windsor could participate in parental responsibilities for their daughter Philofreen (b. June 1841).

Without addressing the numerous theological problems associated with theories that Joseph Smith practiced sexual polyandry at any time (see “POLYANDRY” webpage on this website), the available evidence does not support that Windsor Lyon was cohabiting with Sylvia after his excommunication.

That Sylvia, essentially a religious divorcee at that time, might have chosen the Prophet as her husband in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage may seem strange. However, available documents support a marital dynamic of consecutive Church sanctioned marriages rather than sexual polyandry. After Joseph Smith’s death, Sylvia rejoined Windsor after his 1846 rebaptism."

I don't see how just saying they were visiting Sylvia without reference to Windsor is strong evidence. Windsor could have been out of the house working. We used to say "let's go to Grandma's" all the time and Grandpa was certainly living there as well...he just wasn't the one who made us yummy waffles and took care of us. My grandkids call our house by my daughter's name...ignoring not only that me and PaPa live here, but that we own the house (that part the bank doesn't). Too big of a stretch for me.

Wht then was Sylvia so certain Josephine was Joseph's daughter? Maybe Josephine looked like him, maybe Joseph told her they would have a child, maybe she and Windsor were having problems for the few months around Josephine's conception, maybe she was already pregnant by the time of reconciliation, maybe it was only because she was sealed to Joseph and the sealing had not been consumated. Can't be sure.

Edited August 31, 2015 by calmoriah

[ALarson]

http://www.bountifulutah.gov/HistoricalCommission/FisherJR01.html

The above is a description of Josephine's family from the family's POV. She was the last child of Winsor or only child of Joseph. Her mother remarried a nonmember, Clark, and had more kids. She eventually went to Utah without him, though he set her up well for the trip apparently (wonder if they got an official divorce). The Clark kids would have definitely been Joseph's under the sealing, so if that was so why would there be any confusion so that her mother felt the need to tell her?

Not definite, but very close for me.

Hales, iirc, reasons based on accepting her as Joseph's child but denies it was sexual polyandry based on the alleged separation of Winsor and Sylvia. I reject that for the same grounds as Juliann does. If wives could go for months without seeing husbands and still be considered sister wives with others he was married to, then a few weeks or even months doesn't change things.

If there was an expectation that Winsor would not return....maybe. But I would think more time would needed to be sure. Course she could have been royalled pissed at him leaving, but they got back together so it seems unlikely such certainty would be more than fleeting and if that was the only reason she accepted Joseph...well, it seems unlikely to me.

This is all very interesting, calmoriah.  Thanks for your many posts that add more insight and information for this topic. The subject of Joseph's polyandry (and Brigham's too) seems complex, but again, this helps.  The details are important to learn.

Edited August 31, 2015 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

Not necessarily. My son adopted the little girl from his wife's former marriage. She turn 22 years old today. Happy Birthday Aubry.    He is for all intents and purposes his daughter, and my Granddaughter.

You've got to be kidding.

You're saying Sylvia Lyons claim that Joseph is Josephines daughter means that she believes Joseph was the adoptive father?

No. Sylvia Lyons claimed Joseph was Josephines daughter because she believed him to be the biological father which means Sylvia and Joseph must have had marital relations. Claiming this was an adoption is just silly.

[Calm]

This is all very interesting, calmoriah.  Thanks for your many posts that add more insight and information for this topic. The subject of Joseph's polyandry (and Brigham's too) seems complex, but again, this helps.  The details are important to learn.

Added to the above post some crucial, imo, information if you aren't familiar with Hales' argument she wasn't a polyandrous wife. If you are, no need to go back to reread unless you love my personal insights.

[Calm]

You've got to be kidding.

You're saying Sylvia Lyons claim that Joseph is Josephines daughter means that she believes Joseph was the adoptive father?

No. Sylvia Lyons claimed Joseph was Josephines daughter because she believed him to be the biological father which means Sylvia and Joseph must have had marital relations. Claiming this was an adoption is just silly.

I think he means child through the sealing covenant, his argument being not all claimed as children have to be biological.

Definitely a possibility...but why then didn't she tell her three kids born after Josephine the same thing?

And why wait til she was dying to do it?

[ALarson]

Added to the above post some crucial, imo, information if you aren't familiar with Hales' argument she wasn't a polyandrous wife. If you are, no need to go back to reread unless you love my personal insights.

I've read all that you've posted.  Thanks again.

[Gray]

Not necessarily. My son adopted the little girl from his wife's former marriage. She turn 22 years old today. Happy Birthday Aubry.    He is for all intents and purposes his daughter, and my Granddaughter.

 

Congratulations! But I don't see the relevance. She told her daughter that Joseph was her father. 

[hope_for_things]

Some DNA testing is in the works to validate Josephine father.  I attended a session about this project at Sunstone last month. Very interesting stuff.  They also had pictures of Josephine (she looked a lot like the Smith family to me) and some of the posterity of Josephine was in attendance and they seemed interested in knowing the results of this testing as well.    

 

http://mormongenomeproject.com/

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

I agree with this "were primarily a means of binding other families to his for the spiritual benefit and mutual salvation of all involved". As I have stated several times and you even rebuffed me to say that these "sealing were marriages". I don't think  sealings are the same as a marriage. And  the above seems to make the most sense to what JS was doing. The evidence seems to support this too.

[Nevo]

I agree with this "were primarily a means of binding other families to his for the spiritual benefit and mutual salvation of all involved". As I have stated several times and you even rebuffed me to say that these "sealing were marriages". I don't think  sealings are the same as a marriage. And  the above seems to make the most sense to what JS was doing. The evidence seems to support this too.

 

Did you miss the part where it says "these polyandrous marriages"? The women were sealed to Joseph Smith as wives, not as sisters or family friends or anything else.

[ERayR]

Did you miss the part where it says "these polyandrous marriages"? The women were sealed to Joseph Smith as wives, not as sisters or family friends or anything else.

 

I missed the part where Joseph unambiguously laid out what he was thinking and what his goals were when he was teaching and practicing these principles.  What I find plenty of is plenty of expounding from those who judge them from the pedestals of their 20th century presentism.  What I think is those who do this are no better at clairvoyance than I am.

[theplains]

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?

 

First, God never issued a commandment for Jacob or anyone to enter plural marriage.

Second, he did not realize it was Leah until after the fact.  Laban had tricked him.

 

You need to understand the context.

 

"And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him;

and he went in unto her. And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an

handmaid. And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban,

What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then

hast thou beguiled me?"

 

While the law mentioned in Deuteronomy was long after Jacob's time, I believe he

would not have consumated with Leah had he known what Laban did.

 

Did he sin?  He acted in good faith and assumed it was Rachel. So I would not consider this

a sin.  

 

Did he break a commandment?  No.  It was not given yet.

 

Did he obey a commandment?  No.  A commandment for polygamy was not given to him

by God.

 

On the other hand, Joseph Smith knew and acted on his knowledge that they were sisters

and still married them (and God did not overturn this commandment).

 

Regards,

Jim

 

 

[ERayR]

First, God never issued a commandment for Jacob or anyone to enter plural marriage.

Second, he did not realize it was Leah until after the fact.  Laban had tricked him.

 

You need to understand the context.

 

"And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him;

and he went in unto her. And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an

handmaid. And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban,

What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then

hast thou beguiled me?"

 

While the law mentioned in Deuteronomy was long after Jacob's time, I believe he

would not have consumated with Leah had he known what Laban did.

 

Did he sin?  He acted in good faith and assumed it was Rachel. So I would not consider this

a sin.  

 

Did he break a commandment?  No.  It was not given yet.

 

Did he obey a commandment?  No.  A commandment for polygamy was not given to him

by God.

 

On the other hand, Joseph Smith knew and acted on his knowledge that they were sisters

and still married them (and God did not overturn this commandment).

 

Regards,

Jim

.You are trying to make This fit your notion of what it should be.  You are not doing a good job of it.  Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah true but nowhere in the story does it condemn polygamy not polygamy with sisters.

[cinepro]

I missed the part where Joseph unambiguously laid out what he was thinking and what his goals were when he was teaching and practicing these principles.  What I find plenty of is plenty of expounding from those who judge them from the pedestals of their 20th century presentism.  What I think is those who do this are no better at clairvoyance than I am.

 

Are you trying to say that you don't think Joseph ever unambiguously laid out what he was thinking, or are you just admitting ignorance on the subject? 

 

Because if it's the latter, bravo!  It's rare to see such humility admitted to on this board.

[juliann]

It was actually Edmund that left the house. He went to the Tintic area and worked during the separation. They were apart for about 3 years. She stayed behind in their home with their two oldest. He sent her money and they wrote to each other.

On a side note, I happened to come a cross statement in a history for Fredrick Cox on familysearch.org that says: "From the director of personal records in Salt Lake we find that other marriages similar to this were performed by Brigham Young." Maybe the Richardson's and Cox's relationship wasn't as unique as I thought.

Thanks for the correction and I hope you will discover more!

[ERayR]

Are you trying to say that you don't think Joseph ever unambiguously laid out what he was thinking, or are you just admitting ignorance on the subject? 

 

Because if it's the latter, bravo!  It's rare to see such humility admitted to on this board.

 

I have come to recognize my lack of omniscience. 

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

It's a damned if you do, and damned if your don't situation. Do mention it and get called for Scriptural support(Which there is precious little). Don't mention it, and you're hiding Church History,