Plural marriage, the priesthood, and exaltation

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

I will ask once again.  How does your belief work with the doctrinal belief that all children who die before the age of eight go to the celestial kingdom?  Many billions have died before the age of 8.  5 to 7 million children under 5 die currently each year.   Are you saying those children aren't available for marriage in the celestial kingdom? 

Not one of these arguments for or against polygamy will change the reality of the situation so I really don't understand this.

Either polygamy is a part of Celestial society for some people or it's not.

The evidence in current canon and doctrine indicates to believing members that it will be, even if it's not required of all.  Really, what other argument among believing saints has any validity?

This whole debate is beginning to border on silly.

[webbles]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

Joseph was sealed to around 11 women who were already married to other living men, many of which were active Latter-day Saints.  I wonder how many of these were already sealed to their husbands, or were sealed thereafter.  Would that not be polyandry?  

One sure case of polyandry was with Zina Huntington Young who was actually pregnant with her husband's (Henry Jacob's) child when she was sealed to Joseph Smith.  Later, after Joseph's death, she was also sealed to Brigham Young for time and had a child with him.  She was still married to her first husband Henry, and was never divorced.  

 

The current research is 14 polyandrous wives (Compton lists 12 and Hales has identified 2 more).  If I counted correctly, 3 were married to non-members, 1 was married to a member who left the church in 1839, 1 was married to a member that was excommunicated before her marriage with Joseph Smith and then was rebaptized after the martyrdom, and 1 of the marriages was a front marriage (the "fake" husband actually requested reimbursement in Utah).  The remaining 8 husbands were active Saints.

Per Compton, all but one of them were sealed to Joseph by proxy.  The only exception is Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde, wife of Orson Hyde.  Compton speculates that it might have been because Orson didn't want his daughters with Marinda to go to Joseph and so convinced her to choose him.  Interestingly, she divorced Orson in 1870.  Per biographer Mytle Hyde:

Quote

I feel that because Marinda was sealed to Joseph for eternity the time came when she could see no reason to remain married to Orson for time.... I find no evidence of animosity between Orson and Marinda.

 

[webbles]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

A very sad tale....

I'm not sure it can be described as a "sad tale", but it is definitely a complicated tale.  It is possible that it was a "happy tale" (or "better than sad tale") for Zina.  Many years after the fact, she talked about how her marriage with Henry wasn't a happy marriage.  Henry would later marry three other women and get divorced from all three.

[kimpearson]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Not one of these arguments for or against polygamy will change the reality of the situation so I really don't understand this.

Either polygamy is a part of Celestial society for some people or it's not.

The evidence in current canon and doctrine indicates to believing members that it will be, even if it's not required of all.  Really, what other argument among believing saints has any validity?

This whole debate is beginning to border on silly.

Please point out to me where current canon and doctrine indicates that polygamy  will exist in the celestial kingdom.  I would guess you are reading something into D&C 132 that just isn't there.  There is no verse that explicitly says that multiple wives will be married to one man in the celestial kingdom.  Please point me to the public teachings of any apostle or prophet that has clearly stated polygamy will be in the celestial kingdom in the last 50 years.  Go back and read Dallin Oaks' talk in the 2019 October general conference.  He had the perfect opportunity to say polygamy would exist in the next life but he didn't.  He merely said trust in the Lord when posed with that question.  Joseph himself seemed to view these marriages as being as much about tying families together as anything.  He made no attempt to ever live as husband and wife with anyone but Emma.  I am not talking about sex but everything else a normal married couple would do.  Don't be like every other religion in the world that interprets scripture to suit its own understanding and the seals the door to further enlightenment on what exactly was meant.

[webbles]

8 hours ago, kimpearson said:

He made no attempt to ever live as husband and wife with anyone but Emma.  I am not talking about sex but everything else a normal married couple would do.

You can not say that "he made no attempt".  He did more than sex with his wives.  He didn't openly acknowledge them but then no one openly acknowledged polygamy until after the Nauvoo exodus.

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

I'm not sure it can be described as a "sad tale", but it is definitely a complicated tale.  It is possible that it was a "happy tale" (or "better than sad tale") for Zina.  Many years after the fact, she talked about how her marriage with Henry wasn't a happy marriage.  Henry would later marry three other women and get divorced from all three.

Based on what I have read on this it seems pretty sad to me.  Henry Jacob certainly seemed sorrowful based on letter he wrote.  Put yourself in his shoes then tell me how you might feel.

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Based on what I have read on this it seems pretty sad to me.  Henry Jacob certainly seemed sorrowful based on letter he wrote.  Put yourself in his shoes then tell me how you might feel.

And the eight missions, count'em eight missions!! I bet that messed with his mind! And having children with Zina, think of the time stolen from him of raising his children and Zina's responsibility to hold the load. Just another piece of bad fruit of polygamy, or polyandry.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_D._H._Young

[TheTanakas]

On 12/4/2021 at 3:57 PM, webbles said:

v63 doesn't say that polygamy is necessary for exaltation.

This is the way I read it.

Plural marriage with multiple virgins has these purposes:

- to multiply and replenish the earth.
- to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world.
- and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men.

Peter

[webbles]

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Based on what I have read on this it seems pretty sad to me.  Henry Jacob certainly seemed sorrowful based on letter he wrote.  Put yourself in his shoes then tell me how you might feel.

Yes, it is probably a sad tale for Henry.  But this is really just a complicated divorce and in a divorce sometimes one of the couple that is sad about it and wants it back.  It is possible that Zina wanted out of the marriage with Henry.  As I mentioned, her later retellings (which could be true or her justifying the decision) describe the marriage as unhappy.

[webbles]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And the eight missions, count'em eight missions!! I bet that messed with his mind! And having children with Zina, think of the time stolen from him of raising his children and Zina's responsibility to hold the load. Just another piece of bad fruit of polygamy, or polyandry.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_D._H._Young

I'm not seeing eight missions at https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/chd/individual/henry-bailey-jacobs-1817?lang=eng.  I don't see where in the wiki's source where it says eight missions.  Also, missions back then are not like today's missions.  Henry's missions were generally only a few months.  I think the longest was his British mission and that occurred after Zina and Henry separated.  Also, he only raised one child with Zina before their separation.  Their second child was only a few months old at that time.

I recently read an interesting timeline about Zina's children.  She married Henry on March 7, 1841 and shortly had a child afterwards on January 2, 1842 (that would put conception around the middle of April 1841).  Her next child, though, wasn't born until March 22, 1846 (with a conception date of around April 1845).  Her next child is then with Brigham and was born April 3 1850 (estimated conception of July 1849).

So, she quickly had a child after she married but her next child wasn't until after the martyrdom (June 27, 1844).  And her child with Brigham was conceived shortly after she started living with him (sometime in March 1849).  But no children to anyone during her marriage with Joseph.  Could it be that Henry agreed (probably reluctantly) to be a "front" husband after she married Joseph?  And then when Joseph died, Henry and Zina resumed normal marital practices until they separated in May 1846?

[webbles]

30 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

This is the way I read it.

Plural marriage with multiple virgins has these purposes:

- to multiply and replenish the earth.
- to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world.
- and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men.

Peter

vs 63 says that if one or more of the virgins "shall be with another" then she "shall be destroyed".  And then it explains why she "shall be destroyed"; because she was given to him for those three things.  It is explaining the reason why she "shall be destroyed", not explaining that polygamy is required for exaltation.

You can also read vs 63 saying that all of the 10 virgins "shall be destroyed" or that 9 of them since it says "if one or either of the ten virgins".  In those cases, the man would have no wife or only 1 wife.  So it isn't saying that polygamy is required for exaltation.

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, webbles said:

I'm not seeing eight missions at https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/chd/individual/henry-bailey-jacobs-1817?lang=eng.  I don't see where in the wiki's source where it says eight missions.  Also, missions back then are not like today's missions.  Henry's missions were generally only a few months.  I think the longest was his British mission and that occurred after Zina and Henry separated.  Also, he only raised one child with Zina before their separation.  Their second child was only a few months old at that time.

I recently read an interesting timeline about Zina's children.  She married Henry on March 7, 1841 and shortly had a child afterwards on January 2, 1842 (that would put conception around the middle of April 1841).  Her next child, though, wasn't born until March 22, 1846 (with a conception date of around April 1845).  Her next child is then with Brigham and was born April 3 1850 (estimated conception of July 1849).

So, she quickly had a child after she married but her next child wasn't until after the martyrdom (June 27, 1844).  And her child with Brigham was conceived shortly after she started living with him (sometime in March 1849).  But no children to anyone during her marriage with Joseph.  Could it be that Henry agreed (probably reluctantly) to be a "front" husband after she married Joseph?  And then when Joseph died, Henry and Zina resumed normal marital practices until they separated in May 1846?

Her husband Henry was constantly called on missions (he served at least eight between 1839 and 1845)^[12]: 177 

[webbles]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Her husband Henry was constantly called on missions (he served at least eight between 1839 and 1845)^[12]: 177 

Yeah, I read the source that it is linked to.  You can read it at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V26N02_133.pdf.  It doesn't have 177 pages but I found something on page 129 (11 in the PDF) that says "Married to Henry, she supported herself while he was on missions or involved in other things at Nauvoo."  So it doesn't say 8 nor even a count.

Since it doesn't have 177 pages, I thought maybe the reference was incorrect.  So, I went back through the wikipedia edit history and found when that line was added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zina_D._H._Young&diff=690707146&oldid=686129474.  It references a completely different book.  I found the book on archive.org: https://archive.org/details/FourZinas/mode/2up?view=theater.  On page 177, it just says "sent her husband on repeated missions".  So I read the chapter on Nauvoo and I finally found the reference.  It is on page 124.  It says "Henry served at least eight missions between May 1839 and May 1845 varying from two weeks to four and a half months."  So, per that reference, yes he did have 8 missions but they were all extremely short.  Also, the first mission was before he married Zina, so he only served 7 missions as her husband.

[Tacenda]

59 minutes ago, webbles said:

Yeah, I read the source that it is linked to.  You can read it at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V26N02_133.pdf.  It doesn't have 177 pages but I found something on page 129 (11 in the PDF) that says "Married to Henry, she supported herself while he was on missions or involved in other things at Nauvoo."  So it doesn't say 8 nor even a count.

Since it doesn't have 177 pages, I thought maybe the reference was incorrect.  So, I went back through the wikipedia edit history and found when that line was added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zina_D._H._Young&diff=690707146&oldid=686129474.  It references a completely different book.  I found the book on archive.org: https://archive.org/details/FourZinas/mode/2up?view=theater.  On page 177, it just says "sent her husband on repeated missions".  So I read the chapter on Nauvoo and I finally found the reference.  It is on page 124.  It says "Henry served at least eight missions between May 1839 and May 1845 varying from two weeks to four and a half months."  So, per that reference, yes he did have 8 missions but they were all extremely short.  Also, the first mission was before he married Zina, so he only served 7 missions as her husband.

Thanks Webbles, I started the search you completed, I gave up early. Thanks so much, and I guess at first glance 8 missions is so much different when they are considerably less time than missions now. But wondering, did JS send him on these missions? I believe in the past it was said JS did, but that might be anti stuff. And sure looks bad on Joseph's part, IMO. If he wanted Jacob out of the way. But in my reading, Jacob very much liked proselyting. 

[juliann]

On 12/10/2021 at 11:37 AM, smac97 said:

Juliann, I have been intemperate in some of my comments, and for that I apologize and retract them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you, Smac. I apologize as well. I value your contributions, I think this board is a valuable place to be when legal issues arise because of the really thorough analysis we get from you and other legal minds. (You guys had the Mckenna fiasco figured out well before other Mormonish sites.)

[juliann]

On 12/10/2021 at 2:05 PM, Stargazer said:

I think I've exhausted myself explaining my reasoning on this in many other threads. But here we go, one more time...

Because I believe that more women than men will be exalted, and rather than leaving the worthy excess women to go it alone, there will be plural marriage in Eternity.

No.

There is no better example of circular reasoning and when you begin with an unsustainable demand for eternal polygyny, that is where you will always find yourself.

 

[juliann]

23 hours ago, rongo said:

Both. It's complicated. It should be both lauded and the problems with it should be frankly discussed and addressed. I won't pretend that it was easy or that it wasn't bad for many, but I think trying to nullify all the good solely because of the bad is a mistake. Especially since our sacred history is so tied to it. 

If the "apologize, disavow, and spit on it at every turn to demonstrate allegiance and obeisance" faction in the Church gets its way on polygamy, the priesthood ban, women ordination, and the family, then there won't be much remaining credibility left in the Church. Why would we assume that current prophets are reliable, when past ones have been so disavowed and memory-holed? Why would current prophets be any less prone to that? 

Our sacred history is not "tied" to polygamy at all. It happened, it ended. It's over. It is a historical artifact just like other well intended but failed experiments. Your making this a matter of prophetic infallibility is a problem of its own.

[juliann]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

I'm not seeing eight missions at https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/chd/individual/henry-bailey-jacobs-1817?lang=eng.  I don't see where in the wiki's source where it says eight missions.  Also, missions back then are not like today's missions.  Henry's missions were generally only a few months.  I think the longest was his British mission and that occurred after Zina and Henry separated.  Also, he only raised one child with Zina before their separation.  Their second child was only a few months old at that time.

I recently read an interesting timeline about Zina's children.  She married Henry on March 7, 1841 and shortly had a child afterwards on January 2, 1842 (that would put conception around the middle of April 1841).  Her next child, though, wasn't born until March 22, 1846 (with a conception date of around April 1845).  Her next child is then with Brigham and was born April 3 1850 (estimated conception of July 1849).

So, she quickly had a child after she married but her next child wasn't until after the martyrdom (June 27, 1844).  And her child with Brigham was conceived shortly after she started living with him (sometime in March 1849).  But no children to anyone during her marriage with Joseph.  Could it be that Henry agreed (probably reluctantly) to be a "front" husband after she married Joseph?  And then when Joseph died, Henry and Zina resumed normal marital practices until they separated in May 1846?

I will never, ever, ever, understand the refusal to allow for polyandry when there is no problem with admitting polygyny. i find it utterly bizarre. Even today, these women are forced to hold up some vague idea of virtue by only having one partner, as if the church will tumble down if women were found out to have the same privilege of men even then. (Do none of these ridiculous reasons for plural marraige never apply if a woman was the recipient of multiple partners rather than a man?)  Will women ever be allowed to own their own history? 

[juliann]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

Yes, it is probably a sad tale for Henry.  But this is really just a complicated divorce and in a divorce sometimes one of the couple that is sad about it and wants it back.  It is possible that Zina wanted out of the marriage with Henry.  As I mentioned, her later retellings (which could be true or her justifying the decision) describe the marriage as unhappy.

One of the tricks to avoid the obvious presence of polyandry is to turn the husbands into villains. They left the church, they were overall bad dudes, blah blah.  Fortunately, other credible scholars have torn holes into the character assassinations. 

I find the avoidance comical. Polygamy advocates will decide that as long as there is enough time between contacts, it's not really polyandry.  Or my fav, if a woman wasn't living in one house with all of her partners at the same time, it wasn't really polyandry. 

[webbles]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

One of the tricks to avoid the obvious presence of polyandry is to turn the husbands into villains. They left the church, they were overall bad dudes, blah blah.  Fortunately, other credible scholars have torn holes into the character assassinations. 

I find the avoidance comical. Polygamy advocates will decide that as long as there is enough time between contacts, it's not really polyandry.  Or my fav, if a woman wasn't living in one house with all of her partners at the same time, it wasn't really polyandry. 

I am not doing a character assassination of Henry.  I'm saying that we don't know whether or not Zina wanted the marriage with Joseph and Brigham.  If she did want it, then just because Henry was unhappy after the fact doesn't mean that it was a "sad story".  And I'm pointing out data points from her own story where it does give a possible reading that she was the one that chose to leave Henry.

[webbles]

55 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks Webbles, I started the search you completed, I gave up early. Thanks so much, and I guess at first glance 8 missions is so much different when they are considerably less time than missions now. But wondering, did JS send him on these missions? I believe in the past it was said JS did, but that might be anti stuff. And sure looks bad on Joseph's part, IMO. If he wanted Jacob out of the way. But in my reading, Jacob very much liked proselyting. 

Joseph sent a lot of people on a lot of missions.  I would bet there are men who went on equal or more missions.  And some even went on much longer missions.  The mission of the apostles to England took almost two years.

[juliann]

51 minutes ago, webbles said:

I am not doing a character assassination of Henry.  I'm saying that we don't know whether or not Zina wanted the marriage with Joseph and Brigham.  If she did want it, then just because Henry was unhappy after the fact doesn't mean that it was a "sad story".  And I'm pointing out data points from her own story where it does give a possible reading that she was the one that chose to leave Henry.

I should have said others have done it. Sorry.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

Could it be that Henry agreed (probably reluctantly) to be a "front" husband after she married Joseph?  And then when Joseph died, Henry and Zina resumed normal marital practices until they separated in May 1846?

It could easily be different reasons, she might have had a harder time caring for her first and with less sex, missed the ovulation window, Henry might have been more involved in trying to establish himself and had late nights, she might have miscarried and not known it or did but didn’t share.  I don’t think it wise to assume a ‘front’ without more evidence when there could be many reasons. Gaps in children with others close together is not uncommon even before birth control was available. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Calm

[juliann]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

 

So, she quickly had a child after she married but her next child wasn't until after the martyrdom (June 27, 1844).  And her child with Brigham was conceived shortly after she started living with him (sometime in March 1849).  But no children to anyone during her marriage with Joseph.  Could it be that Henry agreed (probably reluctantly) to be a "front" husband after she married Joseph?  And then when Joseph died, Henry and Zina resumed normal marital practices until they separated in May 1846?

Why are we assigning front husbands when we never assign front wives? Doesn't it make more sense to simply assume the obvious as we do when it involves men's multiple partners? 

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

There is no better example of circular reasoning and when you begin with an unsustainable demand for eternal polygyny, that is where you will always find yourself.

 

Ok, I will regret asking this, but nevermind.

What is circular about it? And why is it unsustainable? 

By the way, I'm not demanding anything. My understanding of scripture is that there will be plural marriage in eternity. You disagree. I'm fine with that.

 

Edited December 12, 2021 by Stargazer