Brian Hale's FAIR Presentation on Sexual Polyandry

[_just me]

Holy crap! Is it just me or did he says he thinks that Josephine Rosetta Lyon is Joseph's biological daughter?

I tend to agree with him. I think the evidence leans that way and if they can ever get the DNA worked out it will likely verify it, but I find it interesting that he's willing to admit it.

Not just you. I thought that was interesting as well!

[_just me]

What about Nancy Marinda Johnson Hyde and Zina Huntington Jacobs? Both were married to faithful men before being sealed to Smith. Marinda's husband Orson was on a mission dedicating the Holy Land when Joseph was sealed to his wife. Zina declined being sealed to Smith in favor of Henry Jacobs in March or April only to be sealed to him in October or something like that— all the way along Henry was faithful.

Certainly the issue was just that these men were not active.

M. Quinn thinks that Huntington's sealing occurred prior to her being civilly married to Jacobs.

Three years earlier, Apostle Wilford Woodruff, as the officially appointed "Church
Historian" recorded the following in his "Historian's Private Journal":
Joseph Smith & Louisa Beaman were sealed May 1840 by Joseph B. Noble
Joseph Smith & Zina Huntington were sealed Oct. 27, 1840 by Dimick B. Huntington in
Nauvoo
Joseph Smith & Presinda [sic] Huntington were sealed Dec 11, 1840 by Dimick B.
Huntington in Nauvoo.

Thus, Zina Huntington was Joseph Smith's plural wife for ten months before her civil
marriage to Henry Jacobs on 7 March 1841.

Well that would put a wrench in this theory. But he does say he disagrees with Quinn.

[_Stormy Waters]

Stormy,

I can email you a copy of Quinn's MHA response if you will PM me your email address.

Thank you for the copy of the paper! I look forward to reading it.

[_palerobber]

The "We haven't had any other complaints, sir/madam" is the time-honored resort of all organizations that don't give a flying fiddle about the people they ostensibly exist to serve. (Of course the early church organization was mainly there in order to serve Joseph Smith, in any case.)

And in any case, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, is it?. No records of men or women complaining may have survived (or at least have managed to escape from the church's vaults into the light of day) - but what do you expect? A carefully filed book labelled "Please inscribe your complaints about the unusual sexual demands of the Prophet of the Restoration here"?

it's also analogous to the "it's not rape if she didn't resist hard enough" line.

[_dblagent007]

M. Quinn thinks that Huntington's sealing occurred prior to her being civilly married to Jacobs.

Three years earlier, Apostle Wilford Woodruff, as the officially appointed "Church
Historian" recorded the following in his "Historian's Private Journal":
Joseph Smith & Louisa Beaman were sealed May 1840 by Joseph B. Noble
Joseph Smith & Zina Huntington were sealed Oct. 27, 1840 by Dimick B. Huntington in
Nauvoo
Joseph Smith & Presinda [sic] Huntington were sealed Dec 11, 1840 by Dimick B.
Huntington in Nauvoo.

Thus, Zina Huntington was Joseph Smith's plural wife for ten months before her civil
marriage to Henry Jacobs on 7 March 1841.

I thought Zina married Henry Jacobs in an attempt to stop Joseph Smith from bugging her about marrying him. That's what I remember from In Sacred Loneliness anyway.

[_Madison54]

I find the mental gymnastics lol-worthy. I mean, you really have to twist and pretzel your brain to make this all "okay" according to Mormon sexuality laws.

I agree with your entire post above, just me....but most especially with this.

Can someone explain to me why apologists (and others) go to such great lengths to prove that Joseph Smith did not have sexual relations with his polygamous wives and most specifically those that were polyandrous, when they fully acknowledge and accept that Brigham Young's relationships were all sexual?

Was "the principle" supposed to be lived differently by Joseph Smith than by the other prophets who followed after him?

I'm not sure if Brigham Young had other polyandrous marriages besides his marriage to Zina Huntington Jacobs, but isn't it fully acknowledged that he had sex with her?

Why is that any different than Joseph Smith having sex with her when they were in an identical relationship?

[_Blixa]

I can't remember if you have drop box or not just me. I'll put a copy of the Quinn MHA response in my drop box for you. I've not had time to read it, but a quick glance showed me that he talks about the "no man ever complained" issue early on.

I've got dropbox. What do you need to send me something? PM me!

check your pm...

[_dblagent007]

Holy crap! Is it just me or did he says he thinks that Josephine Rosetta Lyon is Joseph's biological daughter?

I tend to agree with him. I think the evidence leans that way and if they can ever get the DNA worked out it will likely verify it, but I find it interesting that he's willing to admit it.

Brian admits that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with women who were legally married to other men. However, Brian doesn't think the women practiced "sexual polyandry," which means they weren't having sex with both their legal husbands and Joseph Smith. For example, he claims that the Sylvia Lyon was permanently sexually separated from her legal husband when Joseph Smith was having sex with here. Sylvia only went back to her first husband sexually after Joseph died so there was nothing amiss.

[_dblagent007]

I think Brian Hale's apologetic treaty is a loss for the Church. The problem is that he is a defender of the Church and he acknowledges that most of what the critics say is true. Any TBMs who read his defense of polyandry will have their minds completely blown. They aren't going to be satisfied with his legalistic argument about whethher the women were concurrently having sex with both their husbands and Joseph Smith.

[_just me]

I find the mental gymnastics lol-worthy. I mean, you really have to twist and pretzel your brain to make this all "okay" according to Mormon sexuality laws.

I agree with your entire post above, just me....but most especially with this.

Can someone explain to me why apologists (and others) go to such great lengths to prove that Joseph Smith did not have sexual relations with his polygamous wives and most specifically those that were polyandrous, when they fully acknowledge and accept that Brigham Young's relationships were all sexual?

Was "the principle" supposed to be lived differently by Joseph Smith than by the other prophets who followed after him?

I'm not sure if Brigham Young had other polyandrous marriages besides his marriage to Zina Huntington Jacobs, but isn't it fully acknowledged that he had sex with her?

Why is that any different than Joseph Smith having sex with her when they were in an identical relationship?

It's different with Joseph because Joseph LIED. He went out of his way to keep his sexual exploits a secret and he told bald-faced lies to entire congregations of loyal believers.