There is a Polyandry Thread on MAD

[_Brackite]

There is a Discussion Thread about the practice of Joseph Smith's Polyandry at Nauvoo on the MA&D Board. I think and believe that nearly all of us here know about Joseph Smith marrying and getting sealed to the wives of other men. Joseph Smith married at least eight women who were already married to other men. This Discussion Thread on the MA&D Board was started by a new Poster there named, 'MJNSW' there. Here is his or hers original Post there on that Discussion Thread:

I posted this in the wrong place... so I am bringing it here. Sorry about that...

QUOTE(Dale @ Dec 24 2006, 05:04 PM) *

I doubt Joseph Smith's polyandry was polyandry in the sense of shared marital relations in the flesh. Not one of these women on the polyandry list ever bore Joseph Smith children. More likely to me these were agreements to or associations for worlds to come.

The onle claim of a child on that list has not been proven as fact.



Either way... the principle itself does not make sence... AT ALL. Whether they had sex or not does not even have to be the issue. Why did he have to marry another mans wife in the first place? And on top of that be sealed to them for eternity. Not all of the polandrious relations were to those with screwed up husbands. Some of the husbands were valiant loving husbands. A marraige is sacred and there is no reason in my mind why these women should not have been sealed to their own husbands. (I am speaking of the practice assuming Sex was not involved...)

Now if I was speaking of it thinking sex was involved... then That is just sick and wrong. That would make me question him even more.

It is interesting how Polygamy ends up being a celestial law and not Pollyandry (sorry, I am horrible at spelling!)

I would like to hear what the appologetics do have to say on this subject. It does weigh on my mind....

I aggree with him or her that whether or not they had sex or not even has to be an real issue. What the real issue about the Polyandry that was practiced by Joseph Smith and with at least eight of his plural wives, was that the children that the wives had with their civil earthly husbands, will not be their civil husbands children in the eternities according to the Polygamy Doctrine. They will be Jospeh Smith's children in the eternities according to the Polygamy doctrine from Joseph Smith.
Anyway, Here is the URL Address to that Discussion Thread there: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=20740

[_Gazelam]

The question to any of these "Joseph Smith was a pervert " threads is this:

Did the Holy Ghost leave Joseph Smith? If Joseph was in the bonds of Adultery and was in the bussiness of commiting repeated greivous sins, then God would not have upheld him.

What revelations were received post 1835? (or whatever date you believe it began in)

Joseph lived his life in crescendo.

Gaz

[_Runtu]

The question to any of these "Joseph Smith was a pervert " threads is this:

Did the Holy Ghost leave Joseph Smith? If Joseph was in the bonds of Adultery and was in the bussiness of commiting repeated greivous sins, then God would not have upheld him.

Of course, you're assuming that the Holy Ghost was ever with him.

What revelations were received post 1835? (or whatever date you believe it began in)

I believe the Fanny Alger affair took place in 1833, but then, why would we assume that revelations before that date were any more or less valid than those after that date?

Joseph lived his life in crescendo.

Gaz

Honestly, I think Joseph lived his life by the seat of his pants, constantly reinventing his religion to adapt to changing circumstances.

[_Brackite]

Hi Gaz,

You wrote:

Did the Holy Ghost leave Joseph Smith? If Joseph was in the bonds of Adultery and was in the bussiness of commiting repeated greivous sins, then God would not have upheld him.

How do you know that the Holy Ghost never left Joseph Smith???

You also wrote:

What revelations were received post 1835? (or whatever date you believe it began in)

I think that you are referring to the Fanny Alger affair and/or marriage. It occrured either in 1833, 1834, or 1835. Please See this link for more information about that: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/ ... lger7.html

Anyway, this Thread really isn't about Joseph Smith's 'marriage' and/or affair with Fanny Alger. This Thread is mainly about Joseph Smith getting married and/or sealed to women who were married to other men. (Fanny Alger was Not married to another man when Joseph Smith and her had their affair.) The women that Joseph Smith got married and sealed to who were married to other men, would not only be Joseph Smith' wives for all eternity, but that any of the the children that these women had with their civil and legal husbands will not be the civil and legal husbands' children for eternity. Instead they will be the children of Joseph Smith for eternity, along with him being marry to for eternity with those children's moms that he got married and sealed to for eternity according to the 'Celestial' Polygamy Doctrine of Joseph Smith and BY. For example, Joseph Smith got married and sealed to Zina D. Huntington Jacobs when she was about seven months pregnant with her child she had by her civil and legal husband Henry Jacobs. Zina D. Huntington Jacobs had two children with here civil and legal husband Henry Jacobs. However, according to the 'Celestial' Polygamy Doctrine, Henry Jacobs will be without his wife Zina D. Huntington for all eternity, and also which is more sad, he will also be without his two children he had here on earth for all eternity. Even though they are Henry Jacob's two children by blood, he will be without his children he had with his wife Zina for all eternity according to the "Celestial' Polygamy Doctrine. For more information about the story of Joseph Smith, Zina D. Huntington Jacobs, and Henry Jacobs, Please Click Here.

[_Gazelam]

The Doctrine of Polygamy has more to do with Consecration than any other principle of the gospel.

[_Runtu]

The Doctrine of Polygamy has more to do with Consecration than any other principle of the gospel.

I'm not so much opposed to polygamy but to the way it was practiced. Frankly, the coercion and deceit involved in Joseph's unions behind Emma's back have nothing to do with gospel principles.

Again: sleep with another women behind your wife's back, and that's OK, even noble. But touch your little factory, and look out.

[_Yoda]

Dale has an interesting perspective on this one, and has weighed in on it before. I actually brought this topic up in the Fellowship Forum on FAIR about a year ago. At that time, I was unaware of the Law of Adoption.

It seems like the apologetic stand on this is that Joseph may have misinterpreted this Law of Adoption. He was trying to seal everyone to him because he thought that was the only way they would all be together in the Celestial Kingdom. Later, Brigham Young corrected this, stating that worthy priesthood holders could be sealed to their wives and children and the Law of Adoption was not needed.

I'm sure I'm muddling my facts, so anyone who has done research on this, please feel free to jump in with the proper time frames, etc.

[_truth dancer]

I find it interesting how some guys have no problem with polygamy... but the idea of polygyny and having to share one's wife with other guys suddenly is not so great! LOL!

I go with the golden rule... do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If one is not ok with sharing his wife with the High Council, then he should not be OK with sleeping with a bunch of Relief Society sisters!

Runtu... my friend, :-)

I'm not so much opposed to polygamy but to the way it was practiced. Frankly, the coercion and deceit involved in Joseph's unions behind Emma's back have nothing to do with gospel principles.

Yeah but sleeping with lots of women besides one's wife does? What principle would that be? Hurt your wife? Use women? A woman is alive for the pleasure of men? Break the law? Denegrate women? Revert to an animal and spread your seed with as many females as possible?

The practice of polygamy has nothing whatsoever to do with God, goodness, love, care, or anything honorable. It has to do with selfishness, power, ego, and primitive, animalistic urges.

Again: sleep with another women behind your wife's back, and that's OK, even noble. But touch your little factory, and look out.

It is ok to sleep with other women but just don't lie about it? Hmmm... :-(

~dancer~

[_Runtu]

I find it interesting how some guys have no problem with polygamy... but the idea of polygyny and having to share one's wife with other guys suddenly is not so great! LOL!

I go with the golden rule... do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If one is not ok with sharing his wife with the High Council, then he should not be OK with sleeping with a bunch of Relief Society sisters!

Runtu... my friend, :-)

I'm not so much opposed to polygamy but to the way it was practiced. Frankly, the coercion and deceit involved in Joseph's unions behind Emma's back have nothing to do with gospel principles.

Yeah but sleeping with lots of women besides one's wife does? What principle would that be? Hurt your wife? Use women? A woman is alive for the pleasure of men? Break the law? Denegrate women? Revert to an animal and spread your seed with as many females as possible?

The practice of polygamy has nothing whatsoever to do with God, goodness, love, care, or anything honorable. It has to do with selfishness, power, ego, and primitive, animalistic urges.

Again: sleep with another women behind your wife's back, and that's OK, even noble. But touch your little factory, and look out.

It is ok to sleep with other women but just don't lie about it? Hmmm... :-(

~dancer~

Let me clarify. I am not morally opposed to relationships that involve more than two people of opposite sex (or of the same sex, as the case may be). If 10 men and one woman (or vice versa) mutually decide to enter into a relationship, I could not care less. It's when one person enters into a relationship with another person and then sleeps around behind that person's back that bothers me.

Polygyny and polyandry are definitely not for me, but I know people with unconventional relationships, and it doesn't bother me because everyone involved knows what's going on and consents. Those two things, knowledge and consent, were absent in Joseph's relationships. Add the coercion, and you have a morally reprehensible practice. Not to mention the inherent inequality in these secret, illicit relationships.

Using myself as an example, I entered into my marriage almost 20 years ago, promising to be faithful to my wife. I have not ever slept with anyone else, and if I did, I don't think it would make much difference if I lied about it or told my wife "I'm sleeping around, just so you know." We made a commitment to each other, and sleeping around would violate that commitment. That's what Joseph Smith did. Nothing about what he did in these relationships stands as a shining example of morality.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Runtu... thanks for clarifying. :-) I'm with you, if folks want to engage in any sort of alternative relationship AS ADULTS WITHOUT COERCION, then fine (so long as children are not hurt). There are many forms of unusual relationships that for some, work and so be it.

As you mentioned, there was nothing holy or Godly about what went on in the early days of the church concerning men sleeping with multiple girls and women. Lying, deception, coercion, manipulation, involving young girls, destroying families, neglecting children, hurting women, etc. etc. etc. etc.... just cannot be justified or rationalized away.

:-)


~dancer~

Just keeping ya on your toes here! LOL!