What lies did the Nauvoo Expositor print?

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Indeed, Nevo is a friggin' rock star. Sing something for us, Nuclear Nevo.

[Guest]

Nuclear Nevo.

Man, you really hit on the right nickname for him. I can just see his future biography: Nuclear Nevo: Potent Apologetics for the Internet Age.

[_Nevo]

You asked how other would have done it. I would say first is to at least follow some of the rules you set out. Marrying other men's wives, some behind their back should never have been done, nor has anyone shown any justifiable reason's for doing so. I would have asked God if he wants me to do it, he will need to let my wife know. I wouldn't have gone behind her back. I wouldn't have gone after young girls coercing the way he did. The way he did it was just wrong, and is one of the best ways to see whether someone really is being guided by a higher being worthy of following.

Well, I appreciate your answer. The marrying other men's wives behind their back is, on its face, difficult to justify. But we should keep in mind a couple of things about Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages:

• They weren't regular marriages, but sealings. Joseph never lived with any of these women and there's no evidence that he slept with anyone who still considered herself to be married to her legal husband (all of them except Sylvia Sessions Lyon).
  
  
• Often he sought (and obtained) the legal husband's permission. Obviously, when the husband was away for long periods of time on a mission, this was difficult.
  
  
• These marriages were a means of forging dynastic links where no marriagable daughter was available (Helen Mar Kimball barely made the cut).

I doubt you will find any of those points persuasive but I thought I would put them out there.

[_Runtu]

Well, I appreciate your answer. The marrying other men's wives behind their back is, on its face, difficult to justify. But we should keep in mind a couple of things about Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages:

• They weren't regular marriages, but sealings. Joseph never lived with any of these women and there's no evidence that he slept with anyone who still considered herself to be married to her legal husband (all of them except Sylvia Sessions Lyon).
  
  
• Often he sought (and obtained) the legal husband's permission. Obviously, when the husband was away for long periods of time on a mission, this was difficult.
  
• These marriages were a means of forging "dynastic" links where no marriagable daughter was available.

I doubt you will find any of those points persuasive but I thought I would put them out there.

The problem with these explanations is that they don't really make sense. Why all the secrecy, the lying to Emma, the sending people away, the ruining of reputations, if these were mere dynastic sealings that didn't involve a sexual relationship? It just doesn't make sense.

[_Buffalo]

Well, I appreciate your answer. The marrying other men's wives behind their back is, on its face, difficult to justify. But we should keep in mind a couple of things about Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages:

• They weren't regular marriages, but sealings. Joseph never lived with any of these women and there's no evidence that he slept with anyone who still considered herself to be married to her legal husband (all of them except Sylvia Sessions Lyon).
  
  
• Often he sought (and obtained) the legal husband's permission. Obviously, when the husband was away for long periods of time on a mission, this was difficult.
  
  
• These marriages were a means of forging dynastic links where no marriagable daughter was available (Helen Mar Kimball barely made the cut).

I doubt you will find any of those points persuasive but I thought I would put them out there.

I've heard these before, and they stretch credibility past the breaking point.

[_Kishkumen]

I doubt you will find any of those points persuasive but I thought I would put them out there.

Nevo really called it.

[_Nevo]

The problem with these explanations is that they don't really make sense. Why all the secrecy, the lying to Emma, the sending people away, the ruining of reputations, if these were mere dynastic sealings that didn't involve a sexual relationship? It just doesn't make sense.

I think only some of the sealings didn't involve sexual relations: namely, the polyandrous ones (except Sylvia Sessions Lyon), probably the ones to very young girls (e.g., Helen Mar Kimball and Nancy Maria Winchester), and perhaps a few others (like Brigham's spinster sister, Fanny Young Murray).

[Guest]

I think only some of the sealings didn't involve sexual relations: namely, the polyandrous ones (except Sylvia Sessions Lyon), probably the ones to very young girls (e.g., Helen Mar Kimball and Nancy Maria Winchester), and perhaps a few others (like Brigham's spinster sister, Fanny Young Murray).

Well, that's four out of the 30+, so I guess that's something!*

*My math skills were way off, LOL. How many is it again?

[_Buffalo]

The problem with these explanations is that they don't really make sense. Why all the secrecy, the lying to Emma, the sending people away, the ruining of reputations, if these were mere dynastic sealings that didn't involve a sexual relationship? It just doesn't make sense.

I think only some of the sealings didn't involve sexual relations: namely, the polyandrous ones (except Sylvia Sessions Lyon), probably the ones to very young girls (e.g., Helen Mar Kimball and Nancy Maria Winchester), and perhaps a few others (like Brigham's spinster sister, Fanny Young Murray).

What reasons do you have to conclude that there were no sexual relations within those marriages, other than the fact that you wish it were so?

[_stemelbow]

Well, that's four out of the 30+, so I guess that's something!

Indeed...quite a principled fellow. Oh settle down...I'm not in this, just reading along and enjoying. Just thought I'd pipe up with a jovial comment. There...that should stop any attempts to whimper about poor stem. And continue on as if I said nothing.