For BC - Joseph's Polyandry

[_bcspace]

It is in line with the main topic at hand. Its not like a thread on muffins was started only to talk of pizza. Another flavor of muffin is cool.

Like Krakauer's mind reading? lol

[_Mephitus]

Im sorry, i don't get the referance.

EDIT: oh, nvm, found what you where refering to.

[_Yoda]

This question is for BC and other TBM's----When did you learn about Joseph's polyandry?

I have yet to learn of it to this day (see below).....However, the claim is fairly old (since at least 1853 I believe).

How did it affect your testimony, if it did?

I understood the difference between worldly marriages and celestial marriages or sealings at that time and that is how I withstood the erroneous claim that such arrangements are polyandry in any worldly sense. In fact, I was pleasantly suprised to see the historian Kathryn M. Daynes in her work More Wives than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System use a similar argument.

So, your feeling on the matter is similar to that of the RLDS Church. Dale explained to me when I was on FAIR and asked this question that Joseph's polyandrous marriages were part of the Law of Adoption. Joseph was basically trying to seal everyone to him so that they would all be together in the next life. My understanding is that Brigham Young made changes to the practice when he became President of the Church, stating that husbands could be sealed to wives, and families could be sealed to themselves within their own family units as long as the priesthood members were upstanding.

Was this your understanding of the events which took place?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

So, BCSpace, was the "difference" between Celestial sealings and marriage applicable in the case of Fanny Alger, too? I'm curious on our theory behind how Fanny was "sealed" to Joseph Smith at least a year before the sealing power was conferred upon Joseph Smith in Kirtland in 1836.

This has always puzzled me, too. How could Joseph be "sealed" to Fanny when the sealing keys had not yet been restored?

[_Seven]

This question is for BC and other TBM's----When did you learn about Joseph's polyandry?

I have yet to learn of it to this day (see below).....However, the claim is fairly old (since at least 1853 I believe).

How did it affect your testimony, if it did?

I understood the difference between worldly marriages and celestial marriages or sealings at that time and that is how I withstood the erroneous claim that such arrangements are polyandry in any worldly sense. In fact, I was pleasantly suprised to see the historian Kathryn M. Daynes in her work More Wives than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System use a similar argument.

I am open to the possibility that these women were Law of Adoption sealings but here is the problem. Reading Compton's book, it is clear that the women were taught the PRINCIPLE of PLURAL MARRIAGE. For example. with Zina Jacobs, he pressured her before she was married and then after. She chose to marry Henry Jacobs, but her refusal to Joseph's proposal made him persue her even more. This was often the case with the women who rejected the principle.
This was a teaching the married women struggled with, some rejected and were offended by, and were asked to get a spiritual confirmation.

So my question is, why were these women struggling to accept a principle called "Law of Adoption?" Why were they done with such secrecy and why was it taught to them as plural marriage by Joseph himself????

[_harmony]

This question is for BC and other TBM's----When did you learn about Joseph's polyandry?

I have yet to learn of it to this day (see below).....However, the claim is fairly old (since at least 1853 I believe).

How did it affect your testimony, if it did?

I understood the difference between worldly marriages and celestial marriages or sealings at that time and that is how I withstood the erroneous claim that such arrangements are polyandry in any worldly sense. In fact, I was pleasantly suprised to see the historian Kathryn M. Daynes in her work More Wives than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System use a similar argument.

I am open to the possibility that these women were Law of Adoption sealings but here is the problem. Reading Compton's book, it is clear that the women were taught the PRINCIPLE of PLURAL MARRIAGE. For example. with Zina Jacobs, he pressured her before she was married and then after. She chose to marry Henry Jacobs, but her refusal to Joseph's proposal made him persue her even more. This was often the case with the women who rejected the principle.
This was a teaching the married women struggled with, some rejected and were offended by, and were asked to get a spiritual confirmation.

So my question is, why were these women struggling to accept a principle called "Law of Adoption?" Why were they done with such secrecy and why was it taught to them as plural marriage by Joseph himself????

What I want to know is, if it was just the Law of Adoption, why did he take it so personally when some of the women rejected him? Vilifying and slandering them publically for rejecting him is just one more low thing to add to his repetoire.

[_Runtu]

What I want to know is, if it was just the Law of Adoption, why did he take it so personally when some of the women rejected him? Vilifying and slandering them publically for rejecting him is just one more low thing to add to his repetoire.

In short, Joseph acted in a way that suggests a high likelihood that it was not the Law of Adoption he was proposing with these women. The reaction of the parties involved, including Joseph, the prospective wives, and Emma, is consistent with the proposals' being of a marital nature. I find it interesting that some apologists find fault with us because we go with the likelier explanation.

[_lingsat_tragedy]

I am totally new here. The above topic is a total unknown to me the fact that I was baptized in the LDS when I was 8yr old (1977) through my parents conversion. I attended seminary, serve in the mission, and holds some church callings. I used to defend my position against crictics of the church from friends, relatives etc etc.. that the practiced of plural marriage during the early years of church leaders were just an act of compassion to those who had been victims of mobbery activity. Taking those wives of those who are left behind by murdered men of the church. This information was handed down to us by those oldies in our ward. History about the subject, polygamy alone was limited during that time, my mind recalls that the only available church history material I've seen was the works of William Berret "Brief History of Mormon Church". Very rare to find in church members home an LDS books only those who are fortunate beging from foriegn missionary who came from Utah to leave thier book laggage. Once they are transfered to other area, members will asked of thier books as a sort of sovieners and remembrance from them. If a member holds a book and come to church on sundays, we look at him in respect, admired and invied for having a such book.

To cut short, this topic if not avoided was not fully discussed as to my clear memory during seminary, institute and even slightly open up in sundays school classes.

how does this information affects me? I was shaken, complaint w/ a feeling of somewhat betrayed, why these information keep in those long years. Im speaking only with my observation and experinece alone. When internet was a bit available in our area (getting online in my area is expensive) a few years back there I've come to know a lot of things about polymy alone. Some friends in the church discourages me in engaging myself with those inforamtion because it will affect my membership in the church. But since my interest wants me study those information which I believed it was due to limited reading materials gospel doctrine teachers had avoided this particularly history segment of the church in open knowledge to the members of the church in my place.

I was just talking about polygamy, now here comes polyandry. In my whole life in the church I never heard any of this before, IT SHOCKS ME! really, realy shocks me.

[_Runtu]

I was just talking about polygamy, now here comes polyandry. In my whole life in the church I never heard any of this before, IT SHOCKS ME! really, realy shocks me.

Yes, it is natural to find such things shocking. Nothing we were ever taught in church hinted at such practices, whether or not you find them innocent.

[_lingsat_tragedy]

Yes, it is natural to find such things shocking. Nothing we were ever taught in church hinted at such practices, whether or not you find them innocent.

Is this an attempt of witholding/hiding church history? I find it that way not unless the pioneer members in my area would really tell me that these things (polygamy, polyandry) were taught to them.