- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Interesting Article from teh FAIR sight. Claims to state teh polyanderous marriages were non-sexual. Makes some good points stretches credibility some at some others. I will have to read that article when I have more time. I will say that I do know Brian Hales, and have talked to him on a few occasions. He gives very interesting and entertaining presentations. I think he has an interesting perspective on things, and I really do need to look at his work more deeply. However, I do think that he holds a minority view regarding sexual polyandry. I have seen him debate Todd Compton, and they definitely see this issue from different points of view. I believe most of the polyandrous marriages were not sexual, especially in the way that phrasing is interpreted now, but I also believe there was (limited) sexual activity in some of them. That just is my own opinion, since it certainly isn’t a settled, obvious case for any view. Did any of the polyandrous wives swear affidavits about sexual activity when the LDS church was trying to discredit the RLDS church in the 1800s? Or was it just the polygamous ones who did that? Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
I guess I’m less interested in if JS had sex with his other wives than why recently it has become more of a topic of discussion. It’s like people are saying that since he didn’t really sleep with any of them it wasn’t all that bad. GBSmith wrote:I guess I’m less interested in if JS had sex with his other wives than why recently it has become more of a topic of discussion. It’s like people are saying that since he didn’t really sleep with any of them it wasn’t all that bad.
Apologetics at its worst. That is why, IMO.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
Honestly, to me, if he was doing it just to have sex with multiple women, it makes a difference. If there was a consummation aspect that involved sex, but if it didn’t continue and wasn’t about sex, it makes a difference. If there was no sex, it makes a difference. It also makes a different difference to me with regard to different “spouses”. Frankly, I don’t know for certain what the accurate details are – so all I can do is work with what makes sense to me and how I feel about my best guess(es). I find polyandrous sealing much more interesting than polygamous marriage, and big part of that is the lack of clarity I find in the way polyandry was understood and practiced. It just isn’t a clear-cut issue for me.
Whether there was sex involved or not, the whole thing really sets wrong with me. If a leader tells my wife that he is going to call me on a mission and then she has to marry him and perhaps have sex with him then I am going to have a big problem with that. If that is the big test that I have to pass to prove my loyalty to some leader than I can tell you right now I would fail that test. I can’t picture the Christ of the NT or BOM asking that. Quote:If a leader tells my wife that he is going to call me on a mission and then she has to marry him and perhaps have sex with him then I am going to have a big problem with that.
Yep. I agree totally. That’s why the specific cases matter to me.
When I first learned of polyandry I was shocked that Joseph married other men’s wives. Then I realized that every woman that married Joseph, except Emma, married someone else’s husband. I think the reason that I was so shocked was because I had always believed, and defended the church to non-members, that polygamy was just to support the widows of the men that had been killed by anti-mormons, or died from disease. True, Joseph sent the husbands away on missions. I don’t know…did the husbands know that their wives were going to marry? That is actually a question, I don’t know if the husbands knew, and that to me would be the deceitful thing. Although, Emma did not know about all the marriages before they happened either.
They question of sex/no sex, to me, is insignificant as well. Either multiple marriage partners is right, or it is wrong. At least that is how I see it.
I hope that “no one complained” is not a focal point of new lessons that discuss polygamy/polyandry. Emma complained and no one else matters, in my opinion. Ann wrote:I hope that “no one complained” is not a focal point of new lessons that discuss polygamy/polyandry. Emma complained and no one else matters, in my opinion.
Touche’
This is exactly my position.
Personally I don’t care if God himself came down and told Joseph to marry and have sexual relationships with other women. If Emma said no and had a problem with it, it shouldn’t have happened.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
Was the sealing ordinance the same as it is now? If so, surely a prophet would have a resolute and unyielding need to have marital relations. reflexzero, the sealings were of various types – and there is ample evidence that sex wasn’t part of many of the sealings. Also, if the wording was the same, the whole “legal and lawful” qualifier throws a bit of a monkey wrench into, don’t you think?
:silent: 
I think it is important to point out that Brigham Young era polygamy and Joseph Smith era polygamy are not the same. It would be more accurate to state that under Brigham Young, marriages often were to widows and the poor, so that characterization may not be so far off concerning the Brigham Young era. I talked about different types of polygamist marriages under Brigham Young: see http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/11/08/surrogate-parenthoodtypes-of-polygamist-marriages-daynes-part-3/ Reflexzero, I’m not sure I understand your question about sealing ordinances being the same or different over time. I’d say they were the same. What differences might you expect?
Outofstep, Joseph sent Orson Pratt on a mission, and then married Orson’s wife without Orson’s knowledge. When Orson returned, I believe he was disfellowshipped from the apostleship for a time because he was unhappy. I believe that Orson and his wife later divorced, but Orson returned to the quorum, and his seniority was reduced, leading to Brigham Young being prophet instead of Orson. Orson eventually became a big proponent of polygamy, but he wasn’t a fan at first. Orson also had some big theological arguments on a variety of issues, and it seems that the church embraces much of Orson’s theology over Brigham Young’s theology (especially concerning Adam-God, to name one example.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.