Polyandry question

[Anonymous]

In the essay about polygamy Brian hales (I assume it’s his theory) seems to make this distinction:

polyandry marriages: no sex

Polygamy marriages: sex (though not in all cases of course).

Is there really anything to back this up? It seems like a new theory that can only be found in the essay. I even remember on a Mormon stories podcast where Brian hales and other historians where on a panel discussion, that the other people in the panel were very sceptical of the Brian hales theory. Yet it is presented as a fact in the essay and that bothers me a lot.

What is the evidence for that? Any sources?

Thanks:)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

So that we don’t have to go and search the essays for the the reference you’re making and so that we’re all on the same reference can you post the quote that makes this distinction?

[Anonymous]

Brian Hales believes he has found evidence, and apparently enough others agree with him that the statement made it into the essay. In my opinion he has in effect taken the lack of strong evidence, coupled with the words Joseph spoke, as the evidence that he needs. I understand the position but I am not comfortable declaring it with the same confidence.

[Anonymous]

I’ll find the source later and post it. Thanks for your time:)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Couple of thoughts. I don’t think there is sufficient evidence to claim “most” cases of polygamous/polyandrous marriages either did or did not involve sexual relationships. We can really only speculate. In no way am I condoning polygamy in any form, nor am I saying that sex wasn’t involved. I think it’s safe to say that sex was involved in at least some of the relationships and I believe that polygamy is the single worst aspect of our Church, past and present. I am only saying we will never know the real story of JS and polygamy, and we bring our own biases to the the way we see it.

There were women who later in Utah, claimed that sexual relations were part of it, either directly, or by asserting that their child was the offspring of the Prophet. It’s just slightly dubious, because the women who claimed to have JS offspring were a century later proven to be wrong, and they did have status to gain by the claims. In any case, these women represented a tiny minority of the total number of wives.

To date, no children of JS have been identified other than with Emma. Almost a half-century later, charges were leveled by Sarah Pratt that John C Bennett performed abortions to prevent any offspring from being born. I find that a non-starter personally, because he was a part-time politician, part-time hen breeder, part-time church leader, part-time physician and full-time swindler. I just doubt that a man of limited medical ability on the frontier of civilization could perform successful abortions at the same time that real scientists were developing modern techniques in Paris. Furthermore, zero children is a very good success rate of avoiding offspring. In any case, there are no known children other than with Emma. That, to me, has always been an indicator that sex wasn’t a major component of the numerous marriages. Not saying he didn’t have sex with them, but certainly not to the same degree that BY did, who fathered children with at least 18 different women (yikes).

I believe that during the Nauvoo era, polygamy/polyandry were MORE spiritual than physical. That’s just the vibe I get. Lots of circumstantial evidence, and to a large degree it depends on the reader’s interpretation. During that era it was actually called “spiritual wifery” by detractors. During the Nauvoo City Council meeting to decide what to do about the Nauvoo Expositor, JS said, “They make it a criminality for a man to have a wife on the earth while he has one in heaven, according to the keys of the Holy Priesthood”. These meeting minutes were published by the Church before the incarceration of JS/HS.

This is an area that is difficult for us to compartmentalize, because to us in our day, sex is something that happens all the time, both in and out of marriage, and it’s therefore implied and universally understood that marriage includes sex. But JS’s polygamous marriage were very non-traditional. Furthermore, Utah era polygamy is the model that we project back onto Nauvoo, because we understand it so much better. But Utah era polygamy was very much unlike Nauvoo era polygamy.

Finally, one note about polyandry. It’s not ALWAYS what it appears on face value. I have an ancestor, a woman in the 1800’s, who was married. Eventually, she and her husband split, never to see each other again. They didn’t divorce, they just parted ways with an obvious understanding that it was over for good. When she remarried a few years later in a different part of the country, she was technically living in polyandry. But the reality for her was much different than our projection back onto her. I don’t know what became of him, but assuming he remarried a few years later, he was technically a polygamist, too.

[Anonymous]

Orson wrote:

Brian Hales believes he has found evidence, and apparently enough others agree with him that the statement made it into the essay. In my opinion he has in effect taken the lack of strong evidence, coupled with the words Joseph spoke, as the evidence that he needs. I understand the position but I am not comfortable declaring it with the same confidence.

This is where I am also. It feels to me that he comes from a starting point of “it is all fine, now let me see if I can find proof to support that”. So basically an apologist. He has done a TON of digging into history – I respect him for that.

Even though I don’t see things the way Brian does, I also want to give space to allow others that feel as Brian Hales does.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

We can really only speculate. In no way am I condoning polygamy in any form, nor am I saying that sex wasn’t involved. I think it’s safe to say that sex was involved in at least some of the relationships and I believe that polygamy is the single worst aspect of our Church, past and present.

I agree.

I personally dislike the emphasis on sex/no sex because I think it misses the point that women in JS’s polyandrous marriages weren’t remarrying a new helpmeet, spouse, partner and protector. He fit none of those descriptions.

And I hate – strong word – the emphasis on sex/no sex in the polygamous marriages to very young girls, especially when the determination is, “See? No sex! Everything’s okay here. Her virginity is intact.” Yes, but she’s being kept like a veal from living her own life.

Different people, different times, I know. If we cordoned all of this off to appreciate and study it as an artifact, that would be one thing, but we don’t. It’s so demoralizing as a woman.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

I personally dislike the emphasis on sex/no sex because I think it misses the point that women in JS’s polyandrous marriages weren’t remarrying a new helpmeet, spouse, partner and protector. He fit none of those descriptions.

That sure came across when I read the polygamist housewives writing club. The loneliness experienced was astounding. “It is not good for man (or woman) to be alone.” We are social and relationship driven animals.

Ann wrote:

And I hate – strong word – the emphasis on sex/no sex in the polygamous marriages to very young girls, especially when the determination is, “See? No sex! Everything’s okay here. Her virginity is intact.” Yes, but she’s being kept like a veal from living her own life.

“veal” – dang what a bad (as in correct, but emotionally impactful on how bad it is)

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

But Utah era polygamy was very much unlike Nauvoo era polygamy.

There are many reasons to wish Joseph Smith’s life had been longer, but prime for me is that I think, had he lived, this outlandish, unsustainable and ultimately kind of pointless Nauvoo-style plural marriage would have fizzled out. Is that a reasonable thing to concur from what we know?

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

On Own Now wrote:

But Utah era polygamy was very much unlike Nauvoo era polygamy.

There are many reasons to wish Joseph Smith’s life had been longer, but prime for me is that I think, had he lived, this outlandish, unsustainable and ultimately kind of pointless Nauvoo-style plural marriage would have fizzled out. Is that a reasonable thing to concur from what we know?

I think it is. I’m not sure Joseph was sold on the idea and I’m sure Emma was not. I think he would have eventually succumbed to pressure from her as opposed to others in the church (e.g. Young) who were espousing the idea and pressuring him to expand it. I think he would have realized he couldn’t keep it a secret from Emma and others much longer and given up, and that perhaps it would have become more of a sealing type thing as opposed to actual plural marriage. Just my opinion, and there are admittedly holes.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

That sure came across when I read the polygamist housewives writing club. The loneliness experienced was astounding. “It is not good for man (or woman) to be alone.” We are social and relationship driven animals.

(or woman)

:clap:

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

…as opposed to others in the church (e.g. Young) who were espousing the idea and pressuring him to expand it.

Maybe you have some evidence that I have not seen which supports this statement?

I have seen a theory that BY is actually the source of polygamy, and JS was innocent, but that theory is so full of holes no credible historian will back it up. Other than that flawed idea I have never heard of others pressuring Joseph to expand polygamy.

OTOH …you could certainly say once they became converted to the idea they were eager to live it. Maybe that’s what you were saying?

[Anonymous]

Bear wrote:

In the essay about polygamy Brian hales (I assume it’s his theory) seems to make this distinction:

polyandry marriages: no sex

Polygamy marriages: sex (though not in all cases of course).

Is there really anything to back this up? It seems like a new theory that can only be found in the essay. I even remember on a Mormon stories podcast where Brian hales and other historians where on a panel discussion, that the other people in the panel were very sceptical of the Brian hales theory. Yet it is presented as a fact in the essay and that bothers me a lot.

What is the evidence for that? Any sources?

Thanks:)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We had a discussion some years ago where Brian actually participated.

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4453&hilit=brian+hales

I disagree with the sex/no sex dichotomy because I don’t see how it matters. Suppose that John and Emily are married. JS approaches John about taking Emily as his plural wife. JS, John, and Emily agree. After the sealing ceremony John and Emily continue to live under the same roof together as man and wife in almost every respect. Why does it matter if John and Emily continued to have sex after JS and Emily were sealed? Why does polygamy make it ok for a man to have multiple sexual partners/spouses but for a woman she shall be destroyed? Maybe they envisioned some sort of overlapping marriages, why does the distinction matter?

LookingHard wrote:

This is where I am also. It feels to me that he comes from a starting point of “it is all fine, now let me see if I can find proof to support that”. So basically an apologist. He has done a TON of digging into history – I respect him for that.

This is what I see also. To me Bro. Hales is trying to make justifications for polygamy based on what our church now teaches and believes…to make it more palatable for the modern membership. It seems like a sort of apologist revisionist history. His arguments for polygamy are 1) that OT prophets practiced it and JS was a restorer, 2) to produce seed (though Brian downplays this one – it is hard to miss as that is the only reason for polygamy given in the BOM), and 3) because men and women must be married for exaltation – therefore because polygyny was “commanded” by God must mean that there will be more women eligible for exaltation than men.

I find other reasons for polygamy that I believe that Brian is intentionally ignoring. 1) To grow and fashion a righteous generation on the eve of the second coming. I believe Brian ignores this one because the second coming and millennium did not come. If the millennium was so near that they had to practice polygamy in the 1800’s then now almost 200 years later it would be doubly imperative. But we no longer believe the end of days is around the corner. 2) Joseph reportedly taught that some women belonged to him from the pre-existence. If true this raises interesting ideas about pre-ordination and the nature of free will. Brian ignores this entirely. 3) Kingdom building. JS seemed to have an idea of kingdom building with one’s family group (children/wives/kin) being a kingdom. The larger the kingdom created on earth the greater the exaltation in heaven. I believe Brian ignores this rationale because we don’t actively teach this today. We teach that one man + one woman is all that is needed for the highest exaltation.

I believe that Brian’s goal is to present a semi-plausible historical argument for polygamy that can be accepted by the majority of modern faithful latter-day saints.

I believe that the church feels that it needs someone to perform that function and Brian is the only person stepping up to the plate to do the job. He strikes me as the new Hugh Nibley for better or for worse.

[Anonymous]

Fanny Algier was certianly an affair — then a “secret marriage”. JS was tarred and feathered and almost castrated by one of her relatives.

The God I worship doesn’t do secret marriages.

[Anonymous]

amateurparent wrote:

Fanny Algier was certianly an affair — then a “secret marriage”. JS was tarred and feathered and almost castrated by one of her relatives.

The God I worship doesn’t do secret marriages.

I don’t know a lot about Fanny Alger. I will say, though, that Joseph’s relationship with her was one of the most troubling things I encountered in the “early stages” of my faith crisis, if such early stages even existed the way I frame them right now…I’ve never been able to reconcile what I do know about that relationship, even if yes, “I see through a glass darkly” (to use a very popular quote on this site ). Even as a TBM, I was never able to reconcile it and now I don’t want to.

Roy wrote:

This is what I see also. To me Bro. Hales is trying to make justifications for polygamy based on what our church now teaches and believes…to make it more palatable for the modern membership. It seems like a sort of apologist revisionist history. His arguments for polygamy are 1) that OT prophets practiced it and JS was a restorer, 2) to produce seed (though Brian downplays this one – it is hard to miss as that is the only reason for polygamy given in the BOM), and 3) because men and women must be married for exaltation – therefore because polygyny was “commanded” by God must mean that there will be more women eligible for exaltation than men.

I’m not familiar with Bro. Hales so this information was interesting to me. Thanks for the overview. I don’t know if this has been discussed on this site yet, but the argument that polygamy produced more offspring is now being disputed, with some very confident that polygamy actually reduced the number of children born into the church. The argument is that while yes, wealthy and socially high-ranking men in polygamous marriages had more children, on average, women in polygamous marriages had less children then they would have had they been in a monogamous marriage (rough example: like having four children instead of eight). Thus, while a portion of the male population were having more children, not all men were, and women weren’t.

[Author]

Posts