Polyandry question

[Anonymous]

I think I remember there being a Mormon stories interview with Brian hales that was good. It was a period that john dehlin was trying to be “balanced”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[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.

Fanny Alger was a separate deal from the tarring and feathering incident. One of the claimed reasons behind the tarring and feathering was an alleged sexual relationship with Nancy Marinda Johnson.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

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.

Fanny Alger was a separate deal from the tarring and feathering incident. One of the claimed reasons behind the tarring and feathering was an alleged sexual relationship with Nancy Marinda Johnson.

I agree that Fanny was separate from the tarring and feathering. From what I remember, Fanny’s parents seemed proud that their daughter was a plural wife to Joseph. From Wikipedia:

Quote:

In January 1838, some months after the Algers had left Kirtland, Oliver Cowdery—one of the Three Witnesses to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon—wrote his brother concerning his indignation at Smith’s relationship with Alger. Cowdery said he had discussed with Smith the “dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger’s … in which I strictly declared that I had never deserted from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself.”[6] As Richard Bushman has noted, Smith “never denied a relationship with Alger, but insisted it was not adulterous. He wanted it on record that he had never confessed to such a sin.”[7] The best statement Smith could obtain from Cowdery was an affirmation that Smith had never acknowledged himself to have been guilty of adultery. “That,” wrote Bushman, “was all Joseph wanted: an admission that he had not termed the Alger affair adulterous.” In April 1838, Mormon leaders meeting as the Far West High Council excommunicated Cowdery, in part because he had “seemed to insinuate” that Smith was guilty of adultery.[8]

At this point, Alger disappeared from the historical record of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, only to have a number of stories about her relationship with Smith arise during the late-19th century. All of these second-hand witnesses, Mormon and non-Mormon, agreed that Smith had married Alger as a plural wife.[7] In his compendium of Smith’s plural marriages, Todd Compton discusses this late-nineteenth-century evidence and its differing reliability, concluding that Smith’s relationship with Alger, though fleeting, was more than a casual sexual affair and that she was “one of Joseph Smith’s earliest plural wives.”[9]

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

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.

I guess i think it matters because i think having many wives, and having sex with them is one thing (and yes, it is absolutely not only about sex. So many other things were SO crappy in the wake of polygamy/polyandry. I completely get and validate that. I’m just focusing on this point right now) . Marrying other peoples wives and havings sex with them is is just one step further into the “yuckyness”.

For some reason it simply leads me into the “i cannot believe JS was in any way shape or form called by any divine being to do this”-area. (a long worded area!)

I guess i just see Brian Hales trying to turn some theory that i dont really think is well founded, into a rock hard theory/line that is drawn in the essays. And that bugs me alot.

I get that there is an angle to every story but this just seems so invented, and constructed and VERY convenient for the church. And its based on an idea (polygamy=sex with JS, polyandry=no sex with JS) that seems weird and unfounded. At least in my head.

It just seems like the essays message is: “dont worry. No sex with other peoples wives. Move along”. And i just think that is an easy way out. I would love to believe it if it was backed up by many other historians, but as far as i can tell no other historian has come to the same conclusion as Brian Hales.

Thanks a lot for all the comments! I’ll re read them and comment later:)

[Anonymous]

Bear wrote:

I guess i just see Brian Hales trying to turn some theory that i dont really think is well founded, into a rock hard theory/line that is drawn in the essays. And that bugs me alot.I get that there is an angle to every story but this just seems so invented, and constructed and VERY convenient for the church. And its based on an idea (polygamy=sex with JS, polyandry=no sex with JS) that seems weird and unfounded. At least in my head.It just seems like the essays message is: “dont worry. No sex with other peoples wives. Move along”. And i just think that is an easy way out. I would love to believe it if it was backed up by many other historians, but as far as i can tell no other historian has come to the same conclusion as Brian Hales.

I believe that you are misunderstanding Brian’s theory. Brian seems to be saying that there were some polyandrous sealings for eternity only and that those did not involve earthly sex with JS. However, of the polyandrous sealings that were for TIME and eternity and did involve sexual relations with JS Brian argues that they would cease to have sexual relations with their legal husbands. Even if the legal husband were to continue to provide for and live with his legal wife, he would be prohibited from having sex with her because in God’s eyes that legal marriage was dissolved when she was sealed to JS. To have sex with his legal wife after she was sealed to JS would be adultery and the scriptures state that she shall be destroyed.

Brian Hales wrote:

First, there was a quote: “At Sunstone a few years ago, Brian made the claim that there were no polyandrous marriages.” This is accurate. I have never said there was no polyandry or at least it should never have been concluded that I said it.

I have insisted and continue insist that there is no polyandrous sexuality (one woman having sexual relations with two husbands). D&C 132:41-42 and 61-63 describe three polyandrous relationships and label them all adultery, in two cases saying the woman would be destroyed. I believe it is a blanket condemnation of sexual polyandry. There is evidence that this has always been the case in the Church. References to polyandry are few, but when asked in 1852, “What do you think of a woman having more husbands than one?” Brigham Young answered, “This is not known to the law.” Five years later Heber C. Kimball taught, “There has been a doctrine taught that a man can act as Proxy for another when absent – it has been practiced and it is known — & its damnable.” The following year Orson Pratt instructed: “God has strictly forbidden, in this Bible, plurality of husbands, and proclaimed against it in his law.” Pratt further explained: “Can a woman have more than one husband at the same time? No: Such a principle was never sanctioned by scripture. The object of marriage is to multiply the species, according to the command of God. A woman with one husband can fulfill this command, with greater facilities, than if she had a plurality; indeed, this would, in all probability, frustrate the great design of marriage, and prevent her from raising up a family. As a plurality of husbands, would not facilitate the increase of posterity, such a principle never was tolerated in scripture.” Belinda Marden Pratt wrote in 1854: “’Why not a plurality of husbands as well as a plurality of wives?’ To which I reply: 1st God has never commanded or sanctioned a plurality of husbands…” On October 8, 1869, Apostle George A. Smith taught that “a plurality of husbands is wrong.” His wife, Bathsheba Smith, was asked in 1892 if it would “be a violation of the laws of the church for one woman to have two husbands living at the same time…” She replied: “I think it would.” First Presidency Counselor Joseph F. Smith wrote in 1889: “Polyandry is wrong, physiologically, morally, and from a scriptural point of order. It is nowhere sanctioned in the Bible, nor by the law of God or nature and has not affinity with ‘Mormon’ plural marriage.” Elder Joseph Fielding Smith wrote in 1905: “Polygamy, in the sense of plurality of husbands and of wives never was practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah or elsewhere.”

In addition, D&C 22:1 tells us that the new and everlasting covenant causes all old covenants to be “done away.” Hence from a religious standpoint, the legal covenant of a civilly married woman is “done away” as soon as she enters into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. She would not have two husbands with whom she could experience sexual relations, at least so far as Joseph Smith taught. Going back to her legal husband would be adultery because in the eyes of the Church, that marriage ended with the sealing.

From what I have read the polygamous marriages of JS were all over the map – sometimes clearly violating the supposed boundries that had been established for the practice through revelation – to assume that the one hard and fast rule that was never violated was that a woman could only ever be sexually active with one man at a time (even if this meant that the legal husband relinquished his conjugal rights over to JS) is hard for me to swallow.

[Anonymous]

I think there is a slight technicality that needs to be discussed with “no children from polyandry” concerning Brian Hales. I have read and listened to many of his presentations/ interviews around the time of his book “Joseph Smith Polygomy” release. If i understand correctly it is his position that Josephine Lyon Fisher is Joseph’s daughter. He backs it up by the DNA that has been done by Hugo Perigo (believing member genetisist i believe) and although we don’t have the technology to identify female lines 100% but in his opinion it takes us “far enough” for satisfactory belief. Also Josephine’s mother’s (Sylvia Sessions Lyon) first hand account , as well as her namesake given “Joseph-ine” bring us to that conclusion. What is technically up for debate with Brian is whether it was technically “Polyandry” because her husband Windsor Lyon was excommunicated for a financial dispute with the church and moved out of the house (spent short time in Kansas City and lengthier time back in Nauvoo but is presumed by Brian Hales not to be sharing a bed with Sylvia and probally sleeping at his store .. He was a successful merchant) when Josephine was conceived. He was not legally divorced to Sylvia though, and he was helping with all house/ financial and children needs it appears. This was for a space of about a year or so if I remember correctly before Windsor and Sylvia got back together officially and lived a happy life together thereafter. It is important to note that Windsor knew Josephine was not his child if this theory is correct but still for re-baptized in the church approx 6 months after Joseph Smith death. My details may not be perfect but as an approximate very close. See Brain Hales interview at Benchmark Books avail on YouTube for more details.

[Anonymous]

I did find an interesting that there are some folks trying to drum up some $ (https://www.gofundme.com/MormonGenome/” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.gofundme.com/MormonGenome/) to see if they can go a bit more DNA testing on Josephine Rosetta Lyon. They have more details at http://mormongenomeproject.com/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://mormongenomeproject.com/. I get the feeling this is almost a reaction to those like Hales that keep pushing one version of history and some people feel they might be able to “prove” with more modern DNA testing that Hales’ view isn’t correct.

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to deceive!”

I am not sure if I would call it “web” or “mess”. Sigh.

[Anonymous]

Brian Hales wrote:

I have insisted and continue insist that there is no polyandrous sexuality (one woman having sexual relations with two husbands). D&C 132:41-42 and 61-63 describe three polyandrous relationships and label them all adultery, in two cases saying the woman would be destroyed. I believe it is a blanket condemnation of sexual polyandry. There is evidence that this has always been the case in the Church. References to polyandry are few, but when asked in 1852, “What do you think of a woman having more husbands than one?” Brigham Young answered, “This is not known to the law.”

A quote he made while married to another man’s wife, having fathered a child with her only 2 years earlier, whose children (the original husbands) were living in his house as his own.

Zina Huntington (Jacobs) Young

1841: Married Henry Jacobs

1841: Sealed to Joseph Smith

1845: (After Joseph’s death) Becomes pregnant with Henry Jacob’s son

1846: (Still married to Henry & still pregnant) Resealed to Joseph Smith

1846: (Still married to Henry & still pregnant) Sealed ‘for time’ to Brigham Young (sealed for time = sex)

1846: Brigham Young calls Henry on a mission to England

1846-1847: Zina moves in with Brigham Young (still married to Henry)

1850: Zina has a child with Brigham Young (still married to Henry)

:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

[Anonymous]

Oooops!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Sorry, this topic gets me a little heated [emoji56]

In my opinion, the church leaders skirted around the issue by implementing the Husband Upgrade Policy, which stated that:

– a woman could leave her husband and marry someone higher in the priesthood without any consequence or question

– a woman could leave an apostate or disbelieving husband without any consequence

To a more suspicious mind, this seems a lot like a ploy by those in power to allow them to have their pick of women in the community without consequence.

And I don’t blame women for going along. If you’re living a miserable frontier existence and suddenly you have the opportunity to move into the Lion House and be a wife of Brigham Young… That’s like winning the Mormon lottery.

The more I learned about polygamy the more I realized that there was little chance it actually came from God. And I found that rejecting it as a principle actually brought a ton of peace and power to my church membership.

But then again, I’m just a lowly Elder, so of course I would hate the Wife Upgrade Policy.

To each his own…

Sorry, one more thought about Zina. When she was resealed to Joseph and then sealed to Brigham for time, her husband stood in the room the whole time and watched it. Was he ever sealed to her? Nope. And he was submissive the whole time, even though he was devastatingly heartbroken.

[Anonymous]

marty wrote:

In my opinion, the church leaders skirted around the issue by implementing the Husband Upgrade Policy, which stated that:

– a woman could leave her husband and marry someone higher in the priesthood without any consequence or question…

I talked to my wife about that policy and she is okay with it! Essentially, a woman could leave her husband at any time in order to marry to a guy with a “greater priesthood.” If that policy were in place today, my wife could leave me on a whim if she decided she wants more glory with a high priest or bishop. I am astounded that she has no problem with that policy. I guess she would agree with Henry Jacobs, who said “[M]ay the Lord our Father bless Brother Brigham …. [A]ll is right according to the Law of the Celestial Kingdom of our God Joseph.” Whatever a prophet does or says must be okay. :sick:

[Anonymous]

Wow. That cannot feel nice in any way for you! I really couldn’t image anyone being ok with that today.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

What if the polyandry variation on marriage had made it into Section 132? I don’t think we’d be writing essays and curriculum saying that from time to time this is what God commands, and telling boys (in so many words) to just get used to the idea. Submit yourselves, at least hypothetically. I think we’d have gotten that language out of there long ago.

Shawn, I’m sorry for the stress of your conversations with your wife about this.

[Anonymous]

Bear wrote:

Wow. That cannot feel nice in any way for you! I really couldn’t image anyone being ok with that today!

In defense of Bear’s wife, she is probably okay with it as a historical thing – as in ‘they were just human and made mistakes’. I would be shocked if she felt like that was appropriate behavior today.

[Anonymous]

If the prophet implemented that policy today, my wife would probably accept it because she adheres to the “follow the prophet” mantra.

[Author]

Posts