Babies Born In Nauvoo To Polygamous Wives

[juliann]

45 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I have read many who still argue that Joseph didn't consummate his polyandrous marriages.  I know one can debate if it was even polyandry, but these women did already have husbands.  I feel many women were victims and just really believed their Prophet needed them and they left their husbands (not all of them were victims of course, each case was separate but many had children with their first husband too).

Or do you believe they were not "really" married to their first husband?  What do you believe here?

I also remember reading that the woman would need to be having relations with both husbands for it to technically be polyandry for her (not just her having 2 or more husbands at the same time).

I believe you originally said consummate marriages, not polyandrous marriages. I have never heard anyone assert that (sans the message board stuff.)  They way they work around the polyandrous marriages is to claim they weren't really polyandrous. The woman is then required to be living in the same house with two or more husbands for it to be "real." 

I believe, unless given proof to the contrary, that a marriage means marriage, which includes sexual relations. I am baffled by any expectation that anyone would have to prove relations if married! It defies reason. 

So if a man or woman is married to a spouse and takes on another without divorce, there must be ample evidence that they weren't engaging in polygamy in its understood and accepted meaning. And no...."separated" isn't proof.  No one was ever expected to live with all of their spouses in one house to "prove" they were living The Principal. It wasn't uncommon for them to live in different towns or states. But the rules inexplicably change if it is a woman. It is circular reasoning at its worst. 

It is quite clear Utah polygamy had different rules and even intent than in Nauvoo, however.  

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, juliann said:

Why? Does the available evidence show any confusion at all? 

I don't know if we have many statements by them (or by their children involved....that I remember), but I can look for those.  There was so much secrecy during the Nauvoo years that there aren't a lot of contemporary statements.  I just imagine it would have been somewhat confusing to have 2 husbands (one legal and one for eternity and living with one, but not the other) and especially for the children involved who wouldn't have understood yet. Maybe not though?  Maybe confusing is the wrong word....it was all new to them and it seems there was confusion or questions when the principle was introduced to many (men and women).

It would be very interesting to read any of their insights or impressions during that time. I'd love to read anything you've found, if you have any sources on that. 

.

Edited March 21, 2016 by ALarson

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for the clarification.  When I stated that it appeared Sarah Noon was "separated" from her legal husband, I was only going on what I'd read (when I looked her up).  It stated she'd come over from England and had left her husband (I'm not sure if he stayed in England of if she left him after they came over).  I wasn't intending anything by stating that, only repeating what I had read.  

That makes sense. Thanks.  

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

My quote function is messing up again.

What I am reacting to right now is the double standard that we have all become accustomed to. I'm waiting for more information, like you said....there just isnt' much. Certainly not enough for deciding who was doing what with who. I read 132 as giving instructions for polyandry as well as polygyny. So if I was a historian, I would begin by assuming there was polyandry rather than assuming there wasn't, then making up gendered definitions of words to make sure the latter assumption holds up.  

I also think a lot of contemporary culture and law is missing in these assumptions. I'm sure Nauvoo had its own rules but it was still in Missouri. It wasn't frontier Utah. I get the leave 'em in Europe thing, but women having the freedom to discard men willy nilly, even while living with them, defies all we know about women's rights in that era. There were laws about property and children and they weren't in women's favor. I think polyandry would have given them choice and freedom like they had never imagined. It would have been a different dynamic than it was for men, IMO. (As I have always said, polygamy is always looked at from the male perspective. Always.)

I would just like a let the chips lay where they will approach to this uncomfortable topic. 

 

[Calm]

The story of Eleanor McLean's attempts to leave and then take her children from an abusive, alcoholic husband is evidence that the view of marriage and divorce was messy:

http://jared.pratt-family.org/parley_histories/parley-death-stephen-pratt.html

There does seem to be a somewhat pragmatic approach among LDS at the time though. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, ALarson said:

I saw this question posted on another forum where I occasionally read and I thought it was an interesting topic.  I honestly had not really ever thought much about this (or researched it).  I am going to try to look up how many children were born (especially prior to when Joseph Smith was killed as that detail interests me as well).

One response is that Heber C. Kimball's 2nd wife, Sarah Noon, gave birth to his child in 1842 (I haven't looked that up for accuracy).  

Were there others and how were these pregnancies or births explained since many were not aware that plural marriage was being lived?  

.

On a related note, when I was in Nauvoo, I was crushed to see so many infant gravestones.  

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

 

My quote function is messing up again.

What I am reacting to right now is the double standard that we have all become accustomed to. I'm waiting for more information, like you said....there just isnt' much. Certainly not enough for deciding who was doing what with who. I read 132 as giving instructions for polyandry as well as polygyny. So if I was a historian, I would begin by assuming there was polyandry rather than assuming there wasn't, then making up gendered definitions of words to make sure the latter assumption holds up.  

I also think a lot of contemporary culture and law is missing in these assumptions. I'm sure Nauvoo had its own rules but it was still in Missouri. It wasn't frontier Utah. I get the leave 'em in Europe thing, but women having the freedom to discard men willy nilly, even while living with them, defies all we know about women's rights in that era. There were laws about property and children and they weren't in women's favor. I think polyandry would have given them choice and freedom like they had never imagined. It would have been a different dynamic than it was for men, IMO. (As I have always said, polygamy is always looked at from the male perspective. Always.)

I would just like a let the chips lay where they will approach to this uncomfortable topic. 

 

Once in a while my quote function doesn't work, and I found out it's because I went to quote something in the past and didn't go through with it without deleting the whole quote. Therefore it doesn't let me quote until I delete my previous unused quote.  This may or may not be your case, just thought I would mention just in case.  More than likely you are already aware of that situation.

[juliann]

I suspect you are right. It is just that once it pops up again, it won't allow me to delete all of it. Sometimes I open "reply" and the last post that was posted is still there....I can delete the words but not all the formatting.

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, juliann said:

 

My quote function is messing up again.

What I am reacting to right now is the double standard that we have all become accustomed to. I'm waiting for more information, like you said....there just isnt' much. Certainly not enough for deciding who was doing what with who. I read 132 as giving instructions for polyandry as well as polygyny. So if I was a historian, I would begin by assuming there was polyandry rather than assuming there wasn't, then making up gendered definitions of words to make sure the latter assumption holds up.  

I also think a lot of contemporary culture and law is missing in these assumptions. I'm sure Nauvoo had its own rules but it was still in Missouri. It wasn't frontier Utah. I get the leave 'em in Europe thing, but women having the freedom to discard men willy nilly, even while living with them, defies all we know about women's rights in that era. There were laws about property and children and they weren't in women's favor. I think polyandry would have given them choice and freedom like they had never imagined. It would have been a different dynamic than it was for men, IMO. (As I have always said, polygamy is always looked at from the male perspective. Always.)

I would just like a let the chips lay where they will approach to this uncomfortable topic. 

Great post and I agree there is a double standard.  It seems fine with most that men had multiple partners at the same time, but I cannot believe the lengths some will go to in order to avoid admitting some women may have had multiple partners.  I like your statement that "polyandry would have given them choice and freedom like they had never imagined".