Teach About Polyandry Or Don't Mention It?

[ALarson]

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,

I agree.  My Bishop did mention polyandry in the lesson when he taught it this past Sunday.  Most members weren't even familiar with that term prior to this and most also weren't aware that Joseph Smith had practiced it.  The Bishop didn't dwell on this one part of the essay but he didn't skip it either.  Overall it went well, but it was obvious some were shocked to learn about this detail and were probably going to try to read more about it (which they should).

[Dan Vogel]

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

 

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

 

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

Of course, I reject Hales’ argument from silence. One expects silence on such matters, especially during the 19th century. The assumption of sex goes with marriage, and one needs evidence that JS regarded his polyandrous marriages different than his polygamous marriages. Hales’ main argument is that polyandry contradicted JS’s teachings on adultery and JS would not contradict himself, therefore JS didn’t commit adultery. This is called the Idealist Fallacy. The terms “sexual” and “non-sexual polyandry” are inventions of Hales. He cannot demonstrate that such a notion was held by JS. Even Hales admits that there was sexual polyandry in possibly three cases, but then he labors to redefine the woman’s original marriage as only technically existing due to the absence of the first husband, etc. This is nothing but special pleading. D&C 132 forbids all polyandrous marriages and makes no distinction between sexual/non-sexual as Hales imagines. This revelation, given after taking other men’s wives, therefore is his repentance for the practice. Read it carefully. He uses Ruth Vose Sayers as an example of non-sexual polyandry, but her non-Mormon husband suggested JS marry her for eternity and is clearly an exceptional case not to be applied to the general rule. Hales’ reasoning on this matter is just not sound and most Mormon historians I know don’t accept it.

[ERayR]

Of course, I reject Hales’ argument from silence. One expects silence on such matters, especially during the 19th century. The assumption of sex goes with marriage, and one needs evidence that JS regarded his polyandrous marriages different than his polygamous marriages. Hales’ main argument is that polyandry contradicted JS’s teachings on adultery and JS would not contradict himself, therefore JS didn’t commit adultery. This is called the Idealist Fallacy. The terms “sexual” and “non-sexual polyandry” are inventions of Hales. He cannot demonstrate that such a notion was held by JS. Even Hales admits that there was sexual polyandry in possibly three cases, but then he labors to redefine the woman’s original marriage as only technically existing due to the absence of the first husband, etc. This is nothing but special pleading. D&C 132 forbids all polyandrous marriages and makes no distinction between sexual/non-sexual as Hales imagines. This revelation, given after taking other men’s wives, therefore is his repentance for the practice. Read it carefully. He uses Ruth Vose Sayers as an example of non-sexual polyandry, but her non-Mormon husband suggested JS marry her for eternity and is clearly an exceptional case not to be applied to the general rule. Hales’ reasoning on this matter is just not sound and most Mormon historians I know don’t accept it.

 

one needs evidence that JS regarded his polyandrous marriages different than the same as his polygamous marriages.

[Calm]

 

 

You need to understand the context.

I know the context very well, thank you.

 

I was asking about your perspective on whether or not he broke a commandment.

Edited September 1, 2015 by calmoriah

[ALarson]

Of course, I reject Hales’ argument from silence. One expects silence on such matters, especially during the 19th century. The assumption of sex goes with marriage, and one needs evidence that JS regarded his polyandrous marriages different than his polygamous marriages. Hales’ main argument is that polyandry contradicted JS’s teachings on adultery and JS would not contradict himself, therefore JS didn’t commit adultery. This is called the Idealist Fallacy. The terms “sexual” and “non-sexual polyandry” are inventions of Hales. He cannot demonstrate that such a notion was held by JS. Even Hales admits that there was sexual polyandry in possibly three cases, but then he labors to redefine the woman’s original marriage as only technically existing due to the absence of the first husband, etc. This is nothing but special pleading. D&C 132 forbids all polyandrous marriages and makes no distinction between sexual/non-sexual as Hales imagines. This revelation, given after taking other men’s wives, therefore is his repentance for the practice. Read it carefully. He uses Ruth Vose Sayers as an example of non-sexual polyandry, but her non-Mormon husband suggested JS marry her for eternity and is clearly an exceptional case not to be applied to the general rule. Hales’ reasoning on this matter is just not sound and most Mormon historians I know don’t accept it.

Great to see a post from you, Dan!  Thanks for the clarification and also for the additional information.  The topic of sexual polyandry (and even just polyandry sexual or not) is a confusing topic and definitely one that is new to many members when they read the essay for the first time.  It's also very troubling for many of them.  So the more we can read the records and sources, and hear from those more knowledgeable on the topic, this will hopefully help the members become aware that it took place and also have a better understanding of it.

Edited September 2, 2015 by ALarson

[theplains]

I was asking about your perspective on whether or not he broke a commandment.

 

Which commandment did you have in mind?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[theplains]

.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.

 

Do you believe Joseph Smith married multiple women (some of which were sister pairs) based on

a commandment from God?  If yes, what is your scriptural support.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[ERayR]

Do you believe Joseph Smith married multiple women (some of which were sister pairs) based on

a commandment from God?  If yes, what is your scriptural support.

 

Thanks,

Jim

  Doctrine and Covenants Section 132.

[carbon dioxide]

Of course, I reject Hales’ argument from silence. One expects silence on such matters, especially during the 19th century. The assumption of sex goes with marriage, and one needs evidence that JS regarded his polyandrous marriages different than his polygamous marriages. Hales’ main argument is that polyandry contradicted JS’s teachings on adultery and JS would not contradict himself, therefore JS didn’t commit adultery. This is called the Idealist Fallacy. The terms “sexual” and “non-sexual polyandry” are inventions of Hales. He cannot demonstrate that such a notion was held by JS. Even Hales admits that there was sexual polyandry in possibly three cases, but then he labors to redefine the woman’s original marriage as only technically existing due to the absence of the first husband, etc. This is nothing but special pleading. D&C 132 forbids all polyandrous marriages and makes no distinction between sexual/non-sexual as Hales imagines. This revelation, given after taking other men’s wives, therefore is his repentance for the practice. Read it carefully. He uses Ruth Vose Sayers as an example of non-sexual polyandry, but her non-Mormon husband suggested JS marry her for eternity and is clearly an exceptional case not to be applied to the general rule. Hales’ reasoning on this matter is just not sound and most Mormon historians I know don’t accept it.

Sex and marriage are not the same thing.  People like to assume that they go together but that is not true.  Many people have sex and are not married and people can be married an not have sex.   Can we assume that Joseph had sex with all of his wives?  Does the evidence show it?  For example is there evidence to show that he had a sexual relationship with Helen Mar Kimball. If the answer is no and he did not have one with her, that can show that sex and marriage did not automatically go together as far as Joseph Smith was concerned.  That could apply to other marriages as well.  I am open to the possibility of Joseph have sex with his polyandrous wives if the evidence shows it.   Simply begin married or sealed if even the marriage includes this life and not just eternity does not automatically default to include a sexual relationship. 

Edited September 2, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[stemelbow]

Of course, I reject Hales’ argument from silence. One expects silence on such matters, especially during the 19th century. The assumption of sex goes with marriage, and one needs evidence that JS regarded his polyandrous marriages different than his polygamous marriages. Hales’ main argument is that polyandry contradicted JS’s teachings on adultery and JS would not contradict himself, therefore JS didn’t commit adultery. This is called the Idealist Fallacy. The terms “sexual” and “non-sexual polyandry” are inventions of Hales. He cannot demonstrate that such a notion was held by JS. Even Hales admits that there was sexual polyandry in possibly three cases, but then he labors to redefine the woman’s original marriage as only technically existing due to the absence of the first husband, etc. This is nothing but special pleading. D&C 132 forbids all polyandrous marriages and makes no distinction between sexual/non-sexual as Hales imagines. This revelation, given after taking other men’s wives, therefore is his repentance for the practice. Read it carefully. He uses Ruth Vose Sayers as an example of non-sexual polyandry, but her non-Mormon husband suggested JS marry her for eternity and is clearly an exceptional case not to be applied to the general rule. Hales’ reasoning on this matter is just not sound and most Mormon historians I know don’t accept it.

I don't get why Hales' is an argument from silence when yours is not. Neither of you really know. Why pretend each other are wrong on this point? you explain that Hales may leave room for possible sex with a couple of his polyandrous wives, but do you leave room for a possibility that Joseph did not have sex with all those whom he married?