Were all Mormon polygamists really just adulterers?

[_Polygamy Porter]

The laws of the land did not recognize their additional marriages.

If any of them had sexual relations with anyone beside their single legally recognized spouse then by definition they were committing adultery, thereby making them "adulterers".

IF any children resulted in said sexual relations, these were not considered born within the the legally recognized marriage and were therefore considered illegitimate. The slang term for an illegitimate child is bastard.

The legacy of Mormon polygamy put another way was nothing more than adulterers birthing bastards.

By show of hands, how many are a descendant of an LDS adulterer or a Mormon born bastard?

[_gramps]

Well, I come through the fifth wife of my great, great grandfather, so per your definition, I can raise my hand.

[_Inconceivable]

The laws of the land did not recognize their additional marriages.

By show of hands, how many are a descendant of an LDS adulterer or a Mormon born bastard?

I'm really not sure Porter, but I have a couple nutty uncles that practice it today that give their allegience to Joseph, Brigham et al.

I would add, being a Mormon bastard meant that you were taught to lie to the authorities to keep your adulterous father from the chains of justice. The stories of Jacob Hamblin and others evading arrest come to mind.

[_beastie]

I remember reading that BY actually used the "this isn't a legal marriage anyway" alibi when one of his exwives tried to sue him for alimony (or something like that, can't remember the exact details of what she wanted, just remember that he used that excuse).

So absolutely, in the eyes of the law, it was just adultery.

[_Some Schmo]

That anyone could think Joe Smith wasn't just trying to justify getting laid by several different women, many of whom he likely had in mind when he conceived of this wretched idea... sorry, when he had (made up) the "revelation" shows that people will believe just about anything.

I think the most amazing thing is that it's one thing to be fooled by a contemporary conman, but to be fooled be a 19th century conman? How much of a dumbass do you have to be? Seriously?

[_Who Knows]

Well, I come through the fifth wife of my great, great grandfather, so per your definition, I can raise my hand.

Almost the same for me. Except my GG grandmother was the 4th wife. And she was 16 when she married my 54 year old GG grandfather.

ol' dirty bastard. :)