Joseph Smith's Polyandry?

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

I read enough of her stuff on M* to be horrified.  She insisted that a letter or word in one of Eliza's poems had been altered which proved that it was actually written about a former lover.(She came up with the word she needed it to have said.) The problem is she came to this conclusion without viewing the original document and having no background whatsoever in analyzing handwriting if she had.  If I remember correctly, Stout apparently thinks the Nauvoo women were fooling around so much JS had to rescue them with polygamous marriages.   

From what she told me, these women were victims of the Bennett sex ring, and Joseph "married" them only to rescue them and enlist their help as undercover detectives to root out the sex ring. 

I made the mistake of responding point by point on my blog. Your horror is totally justified. 

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, juliann said:

Yes. And I am distrustful of interpretations of the data from those who are not open to the possibility of polyandry. As of now, we have some very agenda driven conclusions from those who are determined to rule out anything but polygyny as being valid. Those who insist that polygamy is the Lord's favored marriage arrangement for all time have boxed themselves in if polyandry turns out to have been in JS's plans. 

I don't see why the fact that some women had civil husbands AND priesthood marriages in any way indicates that either Joseph or God were ok with polyandry.

That's as big a leap of logic as much of what Brian Hales and Meg Stout are claiming.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

From what she told me, these women were victims of the Bennett sex ring, and Joseph "married" them only to rescue them and enlist their help as undercover detectives to root out the sex ring. 

I made the mistake of responding point by point on my blog. Your horror is totally justified. 

Well..this would make a great novel!

[Calm]

So Prof, do you see Slyvia as practicing polyandry while Joseph was alive and that is why she identified the wrong biological father and it is only in the eternities that polyandry is forbidden?  I can see disregarding civil in preference of eternal, but engaging in both at the same time does not seem to me to be setting the lower aside in favour of the higher.  Sorry if I have misudersttod.

[BCSpace]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Were they not in Nauvoo at the time? which has the necessary requirements for divorce?  Would be interesting to see if divorces occurred in Nauvoo and how often.   And it was hardly a typical divorce if she got so quickly back with her husband or left him that she got confused over who the father might be.

In the meantime, you're left without evidence of polyandry.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here is a new blog post on FairMormon.org containing an "official response video" from Brian and Laura Hales responding to the new, convincing finding by Ugo Perego that Joseph Smith was not the father of Josephine Lyon.

I think the video concisely lays out the facts in a balanced manner before concluding that "credible confirming evidence" of polyandry on the part of Joseph Smith "has yet to be found."

Edited June 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's another YouTube video on this subject posted by Brian Hales in the wake of the announcement of the finding by Ugo Perego. It goes into greater detail and, again, lays out the differing theories in a balanced and concise manner.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here is a new blog post on FairMormon.org containing an "official response video" from Brian and Laura Hales responding to the new, convincing finding by Ugo Perego that Joseph Smith was not the father of Josephine Lyon.

I think the video concisely lays out the facts in a balanced manner before concluding that "credible confirming evidence" of polyandry on the part of Joseph Smith "has yet to be found."

Really, there are only two possible kinds of "credible confirming evidence": a child born of the union, or firsthand testimony from the wives. The first has been disproved, apparently, and the second is unlikely to be forthcoming. My take is that if this had been just an "eternity only" sealing, Sylvia's statement to Josephine doesn't make sense, as all her children born after her marriage to Joseph Smith would have been sealed to Joseph. But the only one she mentioned was Josephine, who not coincidentally was the one child conceived around the time of her marriage to Joseph Smith. A reading that does make sense is obvious: Sylvia thought Josephine was Joseph's biological daughter, and there's only one reason why she would believe this. That she was mistaken just tells us that she was still having relations with her legal husband at the same time she thought she had conceived Joseph's child. This is consistent with reports of his wives who thought they had conceived Joseph's child but had actually conceived by their legal husbands. 

 

[Storm Rider]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Really, there are only two possible kinds of "credible confirming evidence": a child born of the union, or firsthand testimony from the wives. The first has been disproved, apparently, and the second is unlikely to be forthcoming. My take is that if this had been just an "eternity only" sealing, Sylvia's statement to Josephine doesn't make sense, as all her children born after her marriage to Joseph Smith would have been sealed to Joseph. But the only one she mentioned was Josephine, who not coincidentally was the one child conceived around the time of her marriage to Joseph Smith. A reading that does make sense is obvious: Sylvia thought Josephine was Joseph's biological daughter, and there's only one reason why she would believe this. That she was mistaken just tells us that she was still having relations with her legal husband at the same time she thought she had conceived Joseph's child. This is consistent with reports of his wives who thought they had conceived Joseph's child but had actually conceived by their legal husbands. 

 

I wonder if a woman has ever said she had relations with a man of importance when she actually did not?  I am sure it has never happened, but there is the slimmest of margins that one day it could happen.  Of course, that could not be an excuse in this instance, but in the wacky world of possible explanations I suppose it could happen.  

I have never thought of Joseph as a man of leisure.  One that would just lay about and have the luxury of passing time in pursuit of earthly passions.  As I have said before, I am not an advocate of Joseph marrying and never living as man and wife with all of his wives, just that he did have sexual relations with a distinct minority of them.  

[James Tunney]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here is a new blog post on FairMormon.org containing an "official response video" from Brian and Laura Hales responding to the new, convincing finding by Ugo Perego that Joseph Smith was not the father of Josephine Lyon.

I think the video concisely lays out the facts in a balanced manner before concluding that "credible confirming evidence" of polyandry on the part of Joseph Smith "has yet to be found."

This obviously proves too much. Just because there are no children doesn't lead to the no sex no polyandry conclusion. Do the childless marriages of today mean no sex as well? Obviously this would be an obsurd conclusion to make, right? 

Also, why is it so important to make this conclusion of no polyandry for Joseph Smith when Brigham Young and Willard Richards practiced it? So are we to conclude that Brigham Young was a questionable "prophet" and that the Community of Christ is the correct church? Are you trying to say that Brigham Young should be condemned for his polyandry with Henry Jacob's wife? He had a daughter with her while she was still married to Mr. Jacobs you know and this was after Joseph Smith was with her. Did you also know that Mr. Jacobs was conveniently sent on many missions by both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young so they could sleep with his wife? How do you defend this?

So is it still ok that Joseph Smith married and had sex with his other wives?

[jkwilliams]

29 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I wonder if a woman has ever said she had relations with a man of importance when she actually did not?  I am sure it has never happened, but there is the slimmest of margins that one day it could happen.  Of course, that could not be an excuse in this instance, but in the wacky world of possible explanations I suppose it could happen.  

I have never thought of Joseph as a man of leisure.  One that would just lay about and have the luxury of passing time in pursuit of earthly passions.  As I have said before, I am not an advocate of Joseph marrying and never living as man and wife with all of his wives, just that he did have sexual relations with a distinct minority of them.  

I don't know how we can say it was a "distinct minority" based on the evidence. From what I can see, the wives fall into two categories: those for whom there is positive evidence of a sexual relationship, and those for whom there is no evidence one way or the other. I am unaware of any evidence that indicates that a given marriage was not sexual and not intended to be. Maybe you are are aware of evidence I have overlooked.

Do people (women and men) ever lie about having relations with a man or woman of importance? Sure. Is there any suggestion that such is the case with Sylvia Lyon? Not that I can see.

As for Joseph's being a "man of leisure," I'm not sure how that's relevant to the issue of sexuality in his marriages. 

Edited June 14, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Storm Rider]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't know how we can say it was a "distinct minority" based on the evidence. From what I can see, the wives fall into two categories: those for whom there is positive evidence of a sexual relationship, and those for whom there is no evidence one way or the other. I am unaware of any evidence that indicates that a given marriage was not sexual and not intended to be. Maybe you are are aware of evidence I have overlooked.

Do people (women and men) ever lied about having relations with a man or woman of importance? Sure. Is there any suggestion that such is the case with Sylvia Lyon? Not that I can see.

As for Joseph's being a "man of leisure," I'm not sure how that's relevant to the issue of sexuality in his marriages. 

You seem to be saying that Joseph married each of these women for sexual relations.  I agree that the purpose of plural marriage was to raise righteous seed, but the problem for me is that out of all of these marriages not a single marriage resulted in offspring.  What does that mean to me?  Either he did not have sexual relations with each of them or if he did it was not often - there are no children.  Given that Joseph and Emma were fruitful it is clear there was not a fertility problem.  

A man of leisure has the time to devote to all of these sexual relationships - Joseph simply did not have the time with his functioning as a prophet and political leader of the saints as well as husband to Emma and being a father to the children he did have.  

[Gray]

48 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Really, there are only two possible kinds of "credible confirming evidence": a child born of the union, or firsthand testimony from the wives. The first has been disproved, apparently, and the second is unlikely to be forthcoming. My take is that if this had been just an "eternity only" sealing, Sylvia's statement to Josephine doesn't make sense, as all her children born after her marriage to Joseph Smith would have been sealed to Joseph. But the only one she mentioned was Josephine, who not coincidentally was the one child conceived around the time of her marriage to Joseph Smith. A reading that does make sense is obvious: Sylvia thought Josephine was Joseph's biological daughter, and there's only one reason why she would believe this. That she was mistaken just tells us that she was still having relations with her legal husband at the same time she thought she had conceived Joseph's child. This is consistent with reports of his wives who thought they had conceived Joseph's child but had actually conceived by their legal husbands. 

 

I would imagine that the reason for entering into the polyandrous marriages in the first place was to help maintain secrecy. An accidental pregnancy could be attributed to the women's original husbands, whereas a pregnancy for an apparently unmarried woman would be scandalous and difficult to explain. 

[jkwilliams]

13 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

You seem to be saying that Joseph married each of these women for sexual relations.  I agree that the purpose of plural marriage was to raise righteous seed, but the problem for me is that out of all of these marriages not a single marriage resulted in offspring.  What does that mean to me?  Either he did not have sexual relations with each of them or if he did it was not often - there are no children.  Given that Joseph and Emma were fruitful it is clear there was not a fertility problem.  

A man of leisure has the time to devote to all of these sexual relationships - Joseph simply did not have the time with his functioning as a prophet and political leader of the saints as well as husband to Emma and being a father to the children he did have.  

No, I'm not saying "Joseph married each of these women for sexual relations" because I don't believe that was the reason for the marriages. But there's no denying there was a sexual aspect to the marriages, as several wives testified to that reality. IMO, when someone gets married, the default assumption is that it will be consummated, unless there is reason to believe otherwise. A while back I read through the Temple Lot Case transcripts and transcribed some of it on my blog:

• Joseph Bates Noble
• Emily Partridge
• Melissa Lott Willes

It's clear from the testimonies that sexuality was part of the expectation in these marriages. I am reminded in rereading Joseph Noble's testimony that he says Joseph and Louisa Beaman went into the bedroom together, blew out the candle, and spent the night together. According to Meg Stout, Noble's testimony is evidence there was no sexuality because Noble didn't actually see them having sex (again, I'm not making this up).

If I were to guess, the reason why Emma conceived and the other wives didn't is that Joseph was not having regular relations with his wives other than with Emma. As you correctly note, doing so with 34-plus wives would be quite impossible unless he was doing nothing else--which we know is not the case. Others have suggested that contraception and abortion were involved, but I don't think the evidence for that is solid at all. 

I've never understood why some people believe there are only two options: Joseph as sexual libertine or engaging in spiritual "sealings" only. As with pretty much everything else in life, the reality is likely somewhere in the middle.

Edited June 14, 2016 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

I would imagine that the reason for entering into the polyandrous marriages in the first place was to help maintain secrecy. An accidental pregnancy could be attributed to the women's original husbands, whereas a pregnancy for an apparently unmarried woman would be scandalous and difficult to explain. 

Maybe. Who knows? The bottom line is that we have firsthand testimony from a number of the wives that their marriages were sexual, we have corroboration from others who say the same thing, and we have testimony from some of the wives that they believed Joseph had fathered children by his plural wives. It's simply not plausible to insist there wasn't sexuality in Joseph Smith's plural marriages. The most we can say is that there are a number of marriages for which there is no testimony one way or another.

[Tacenda]

39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No, I'm not saying "Joseph married each of these women for sexual relations" because I don't believe that was the reason for the marriages. But there's no denying there was a sexual aspect to the marriages, as several wives testified to that reality. IMO, when someone gets married, the default assumption is that it will be consummated, unless there is reason to believe otherwise. A while back I read through the Temple Lot Case transcripts and transcribed some of it on my blog:

• Joseph Bates Noble
• Emily Partridge
• Melissa Lott Willes

It's clear from the testimonies that sexuality was part of the expectation in these marriages. I am reminded in rereading Joseph Noble's testimony that he says Joseph and Louisa Beaman went into the bedroom together, blew out the candle, and spent the night together. According to Meg Stout, Noble's testimony is evidence there was no sexuality because Noble didn't actually see them having sex (again, I'm not making this up).

If I were to guess, the reason why Emma conceived and the other wives didn't is that Joseph was not having regular relations with his wives other than with Emma. As you correctly note, doing so with 34-plus wives would be quite impossible unless he was doing nothing else--which we know is not the case. Others have suggested that contraception and abortion were involved, but I don't think the evidence for that is solid at all. 

I've never understood why some people believe there are only two options: Joseph as sexual libertine or engaging in spiritual "sealings" only. As with pretty much everything else in life, the reality is likely somewhere in the middle.

I don't want to be specific, but no one ever mentions the natural method of contraception.  

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe. Who knows? The bottom line is that we have firsthand testimony from a number of the wives that their marriages were sexual, we have corroboration from others who say the same thing, and we have testimony from some of the wives that they believed Joseph had fathered children by his plural wives. It's simply not plausible to insist there wasn't sexuality in Joseph Smith's plural marriages. The most we can say is that there are a number of marriages for which there is no testimony one way or another.

As Joseph Smith and his purported wives fertile it seems odd that no children resulted except those by Emma.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

As Joseph Smith and his purported wives fertile it seems odd that no children resulted except those by Emma.

Only if one assumes regular relations. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe. Who knows? The bottom line is that we have firsthand testimony from a number of the wives that their marriages were sexual, we have corroboration from others who say the same thing, and we have testimony from some of the wives that they believed Joseph had fathered children by his plural wives. It's simply not plausible to insist there wasn't sexuality in Joseph Smith's plural marriages. The most we can say is that there are a number of marriages for which there is no testimony one way or another.

How did the focus of this discussion shift?

I thought the matter at hand was Joseph's alleged practice of polyandry, not his polygamy in general.

After the discussion on this thread subsequent to my last post, I'm still inclined to agree with Brian Hales that "credible confirming evidence" of polyandry on the part of Joseph Smith "has yet to be found."

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How did the focus of this discussion shift?

I thought the matter at hand was Joseph's alleged practice of polyandry, not his polygamy in general.

After the discussion on this thread subsequent to my last post, I'm still inclined to agree with Brian Hales that "credible confirming evidence" of polyandry on the part of Joseph Smith "has yet to be found."

As I said, credible evidence comes in two forms, neither of which is likely to come forth.

ETA: the subject changed when Storm Rider asserted that sexuality was involved in a "distinct minority" and suggested that Sylvia Lyon might have lied. 

Edited June 14, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Really, there are only two possible kinds of "credible confirming evidence": a child born of the union, or firsthand testimony from the wives. The first has been disproved, apparently, and the second is unlikely to be forthcoming. My take is that if this had been just an "eternity only" sealing, Sylvia's statement to Josephine doesn't make sense, as all her children born after her marriage to Joseph Smith would have been sealed to Joseph. But the only one she mentioned was Josephine, who not coincidentally was the one child conceived around the time of her marriage to Joseph Smith. A reading that does make sense is obvious: Sylvia thought Josephine was Joseph's biological daughter, and there's only one reason why she would believe this. That she was mistaken just tells us that she was still having relations with her legal husband at the same time she thought she had conceived Joseph's child. This is consistent with reports of his wives who thought they had conceived Joseph's child but had actually conceived by their legal husbands. 

 

Josephine Lyon's affidavit is essentially hearsay.

Hearsay testimony is less credible than eyewitness testimony (and is disallowed in a court of law) because it is not only subject to murkiness of faulty memory but to misunderstanding of what was meant by the reported statement. What is needed is an additional witness either to corroborate the hearsay or shed doubt on it.

In this instance, we have such a witness: Josephine's half-sister by a subsequent marriage who was in the room when Sylvia Sessions Lyon, while dying, made the alleged statement to Josephine. The half-sister applied the statement to herself as well as to Josephine. I wonder why she would have done so, had it been clear that Sylvia was referring to Joseph being Josephine's biological father as opposed to her father under a sealing covenant.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As I said, credible evidence comes in two forms, neither of which is likely to come forth.

ETA: the subject changed when Storm Rider asserted that sexuality was involved in a "distinct minority" and suggested that Sylvia Lyon might have lied. 

And his suggestion is among multiple possibilities.

ETA:

If credible evidence isn't likely to come forth, we are left with having to make an individual choice of what and whom to believe.

A matter of choice -- it always seems to come down to that, eh jkwilliams? (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

Edited June 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And his suggestion is among multiple possibilities.

Sure, but you asked how the subject changed. That is the answer.

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And his suggestion is among multiple possibilities.

ETA:

If credible evidence isn't likely to come forth, we are left with having to make an individual choice of what and whom to believe.

A matter of choice -- it always seems to come down to that, eh jkwilliams? (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

Of course. I have never said there's slam-dunk evidence of polyandry, but I believe the available evidence clearly points in that direction. I guess I choose to follow the evidence where I think it leads.

By the way, does anyone have Phebe Clark's actual statement? I've watched the Hales videos, but he never quotes the statement directly. Thanks.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Of course. I have never said there's slam-dunk evidence of polyandry, but I believe the available evidence clearly points in that direction. I guess I choose to follow the evidence where I think it leads.

 

Or where you're predisposed to have it go.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd