DiscussMormonism.com

Sylvia Sessions wedded Windsor Lyon in a civil ceremony on April 21, 1838. Together they moved to Nauvoo and were comfortably established there by July 1840. At some point thereafter, Sylvia was sealed to the Prophet. The question is when did that sealing occur and what was the status of her marriage to Windsor at that moment. If they had experienced a religious divorce prior to her sealing to Joseph Smith, a religious divorce that would have curtailed sexual relations between the two, then Sylvia would be guilty of ceremonial polyandry, but not sexual polyandry.

. . .

Several evidences indicate that some sort of divorce or termination was inherent in Windsor Lyon’s excommunication or at least accompanied it chronologically. Andrew Jenson’s notes reflect this perspective as he referred to Sylvia a “formerly the wife of Windsor Lyons,”[41] also writing that Sylvia “was married to Mr. Lyon. When he left the Church she was sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith.”[42]

Josephine Lyon’s 1915 statement also implies that the excommunication invalidated her marriage to Windsor, allowing her to be legitimately sealed to Joseph Smith and bare a child with him. Sylvia told Josephine that she was “sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church.”[43]

Researchers who accept Josephine’s 1915 statement as evidence that she was Joseph’s offspring cannot easily reject the timeline presented or the implication that Windsor’s Church estrangement was interpreted by Josephine as an official separation or divorce, thus legitimizing her mother’s ability to be sealed to the Prophet. Neither is there any indication that Josephine thought her mother was simultaneously married to two men polyandrously or that Sylvia continued to cohabit with Windsor after his excommunication. Importantly, there is no evidence of sexual polyandry in this relationship.[44]

truth dancer wrote:Just when I thought I would never hear anything new from apologists... WOW! (Insert roll eyes smilie here)!

So now we have the apologetic assertion that if a man is excommunicated, there is a "spiritual divorce" and a woman is free to be sealed to someone else? Have sex with another man even if she is lawfully still married to the first husband?

Really?

I thought an LDS woman who was actually really, truly, lawfully, divorced cannot be sealed to another man unless there is a cancellation (or whatever it is called these days).

And, the whole, "there is no evidence there was sex," is such nonsense. I guess unless there is a video recording there is no "evidence."

Well, I guess we can now just assume all of the married women and girls Joseph Smith "married," were actually spiritually divorced, if not because the real husband was excommunicated than who knows, maybe Joseph Smith just spritually divorced them with his prophetic powers. (sigh)

Crazy stuff!

~td~

harmony wrote:

truth dancer wrote:Just when I thought I would never hear anything new from apologists... WOW! (Insert roll eyes smilie here)!

So now we have the apologetic assertion that if a man is excommunicated, there is a "spiritual divorce" and a woman is free to be sealed to someone else? Have sex with another man even if she is lawfully still married to the first husband?

Really?

I thought an LDS woman who was actually really, truly, lawfully, divorced cannot be sealed to another man unless there is a cancellation (or whatever it is called these days).

And, the whole, "there is no evidence there was sex," is such nonsense. I guess unless there is a video recording there is no "evidence."

Well, I guess we can now just assume all of the married women and girls Joseph Smith "married," were actually spiritually divorced, if not because the real husband was excommunicated than who knows, maybe Joseph Smith just spritually divorced them with his prophetic powers. (sigh)

Crazy stuff!

~td~

Things were different when Joseph was alive, TD. There's no sense in any argument that is based on the rule of law... because Joseph recognized no law but his own (and sometimes not even that!)

The more I read about this period of history, the more it looks like a free-sex-for-all precursor of the 60's sexual freefall. Men bounced from bed to bed, women bounced from man to man, and "legal" had no bearing on any behavior.

No wonder the neighbors were appalled! Heck, no wonder WE are appalled. Apologists only get appalled when it's someone like Warren Jeffs... they give Joseph and his friends a free-for-all pass.