Dynasitc Marriages-Doctrinal Question

[_Runtu]

Speculative? Sure, but Sister Lightner was in a position to know, and she said she knew of 3 children.

And WHY weren't they publicly acknowledged, do you think?

I don't think polyandry was commonly acknowledged back then any more than it is acknowledged today. Given the way some modern Mormons have reacted to the idea of Joseph's having sexual relations with the polyandrous wives, it might have shaken up a lot of people in the 19th century. And just think what the non-Mormon press would have done with this information. I doubt anyone wants to have their children called "bastards" in the Tribune, but that's what most likely would have happened.

[_charity]

Speculative? Sure, but Sister Lightner was in a position to know, and she said she knew of 3 children.

And WHY weren't they publicly acknowledged, do you think?

I don't think polyandry was commonly acknowledged back then any more than it is acknowledged today. Given the way some modern Mormons have reacted to the idea of Joseph's having sexual relations with the polyandrous wives, it might have shaken up a lot of people in the 19th century. And just think what the non-Mormon press would have done with this information. I doubt anyone wants to have their children called "bastards" in the Tribune, but that's what most likely would have happened.

Those children wouldn't have been any worse off than the children of the polygynous plural marriages who were called that in the Gentile press. I don't think that can be used a a reason.

I think the Saints who had undergone the tremendous persepctutions and privations of the expulson from Illinois and getting established in Utah were close enough to the Spirit that they would have been given whatever witness was required.

[_Runtu]

Those children wouldn't have been any worse off than the children of the polygynous plural marriages who were called that in the Gentile press. I don't think that can be used a a reason.

I think the Saints who had undergone the tremendous persepctutions and privations of the expulson from Illinois and getting established in Utah were close enough to the Spirit that they would have been given whatever witness was required.

As I said, the idea that Joseph had had sex with other men's wives would have been scandalous, even among the Mormons. For whatever reason, polyandry has historically been seen as more unseemly than polygyny, at least in Western cultures. And despite what you say, I don't believe that the people back then were all that different from church members today. Only 7 years after the church arrived in the Salt Lake Valley, a Reformation was undertaken because there was great concern among the leadership about waning faith and tepid dedication to the church; I don't see those people as being any closer to the Spirit than members are today.

[_Brackite]

Hello all here,


rcrocket wrote:

I am correct. Zina was married for eternity to Joseph, and not for time. (Compton, p. 83.) Even Compton admits there is no evidence that she and Joseph lived together as husband and wife. He reports that there is no evidence that Joseph lived or cohabited with any of these "for eternity" only wives, the ones you call polyandrous. (Compton, p. 90.) All of Joseph's wives, young and elderly, were parceled out to various men "out of a sense of responsibility" for offers of marriage; not all accepted. (Compton, p. 83.)

The "for eternity" wives presented problems; why should they worry about care when they already had husbands? But the apostles still felt an obligation to take care of them in some sense. That was somehow taken care of in Zina's case by a marriage to time under the authority of the priesthood to Brigham, but Zina continued to live with and cohabit with Henry. I don't think the distinction between time and eternity were well understood, particularly with Joseph's wives the apostles felt a need to account for.

The Following important information is from LDS Author, Todd Compton:

Some, like Emma Smith, conclude that Joseph's marriages were for eternity only, not for time (thus without earthly sexuality). But many of Joseph's wives affirmed that they were married to him for eternity and time, with sexuality included. Eliza Snow, in her autobiography, wrote that "I was sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for time and eternity, in accordance with the Celestial Law of Marriage which God has revealed." Furthermore, there are no known instances of marriages for "eternity only" in the nineteenth century.

Some have pointed out that Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner said in 1905, "I ... was sealed to Joseph for Eternity." Thus, they argue, Smith had no relations with her, a polyandrous wife, as he was married to her for eternity only. However, Lightner apparently was merely emphasizing eternity in this statement; she testified in three different places that she was also sealed to Smith for time. For example, in a 1902 statement, she said, "Brigham Young Sealed me to him [Smith], for time & all eternity."

Zina Huntington Young also had a polyandrous relationship with Smith and her first husband, Henry Jacobs. Some point out that she gave an interview in which she referred to her marriage to Smith as "eternal," not for "time." However, in the same interview she emphasized that she was married to the Mormon leader for time, as well:

[Zina:] ... he [Joseph Smith] married me ... When Brigham Young returned from England, he repeated the ceremony for time and eternity. ... I was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity.

[Question:] Mrs. Young, you claim, I believe, that you were not married to him "for time?"

[Zina:] "For eternity." I was married to Mr. Jacobs, but the marriage was unhappy and we parted ...

[Q:] Is it a fact then, Mrs. Young, that Joseph was not married to you only in the sense of being sealed "for eternity?"

[Zina:] As his wife for time and eternity.

[Q:] Mrs. Young, you have answered that question in two ways; for time, and for time and eternity.

[Zina:] I meant for eternity.

Some interpreters place great weight on these statements, as showing that Zina's marriage was "spiritual" only. But the interview is so contradictory on this issue, as the elderly Zina sounds defensive and confused while answering an RLDS judge's harsh questions, that it cannot be used as solid evidence. One even wonders if early Mormons did not use the term "marriage for eternity" to encompass "time and eternity," as Mormons do today.


( Excerpts From In Sacred Loneliness: )

[_Brackite]

Hello all here,


rcrocket wrote:

I just don't think you are all that read. Henry was disfellowshipped for his relationship with Aseneth while on his mission. I don't see it all that difficult to see the circumstances which led to Zina's divorce of Henry. Most wives would do the same thing today.


Non-Celestial Thread Reference

Henry Jacobs was Not dis-fellow-shipped while he was on his Mission to Great Britain, and he was Not dis-fellow-shipped because of his relationship with Aseneth while on his mission to Great Britain. The Following information is from the LDS Apologist, Allen of 'FAIR':

Besides marrying Aseneth, there is evidence that Henry married Sarah Taylor in Arizona in 1850. 76 He was also disfellowshipped in January 1851, 77 in abstentia, apparently in relation to performing an unauthorized plural marriage for W.W. Phelps as Henry was traveling with Phelps to Winter Quarters from Cambria, New York. (Phelps was excommunicated for having entered the marriage; Henry was disfellowshipped for having performed the marriage.) 78

...

76 We don't know if this marriage was polygamous or not; it is based on family tradition, not on contemporaneous records. Perhaps the most solid evidence for such a marriage is in the late-life journal of Oliver Huntington, about thirteen years after Henry died. On October 9, 1899, Oliver was traveling in California. He recorded staying with "a man by the name of Ginger who married the woman that used to be Henry Jacobs wife, maiden name, Sarah Taylor." See Oliver B. Huntington, Diary of Oliver B. Huntington, 1842-1847, Part II (typescript, 1942), L. Tom Perry Special Collections, BYU, BX 8670.1 .H925, 440.

77 Journal History, 26 January 1851, LDS Church Archives

78 Henry did not learn of the disfellowshipment until some time later, first mentioning it in a September 1858 letter to Zina. [Letter from Henry B. Jacobs, September 2, 1858, part of the Zina Card Brown Family Collection (1806-1972), LDS Church Archives, MS 4780, box 2, folder 2.]


( 'FAIR'. , Bold Emphasis Mine. )

[_Jason Bourne]

I was thinking some more about polyandry.

It seems, based on what information we have, that most likely Joseph's polyandrous marriages were sealings and/or marriages for eternity. The women continued to live with their first husbands. I am not sure I understand why Joseph Smith needed to be sealed to the ones that had faithful husbands. Why couldn't those wives have been sealed to their first husband. Overall,even with polygamy the practice of polyandry seems strange and even an aberration. In fact, as far as I know Joseph and Brigham were the only ones that practiced it and in Brigham's case it was only in the case of Zina.

Am I missing something? Was polyandry practiced more widely? If yes by whom? If no why not? If it was not did those who succeeded Joseph view this as a mistake and cease the practice?

[_Yoda]

I was thinking some more about polyandry.

It seems, based on what information we have, that most likely Joseph's polyandrous marriages were sealings and/or marriages for eternity. The women continued to live with their first husbands. I am not sure I understand why Joseph Smith needed to be sealed to the ones that had faithful husbands. Why couldn't those wives have been sealed to their first husband. Overall,even with polygamy the practice of polyandry seems strange and even an aberration. In fact, as far as I know Joseph and Brigham were the only ones that practiced it and in Brigham's case it was only in the case of Zina.

Am I missing something? Was polyandry practiced more widely? If yes by whom? If no why not? If it was not did those who succeeded Joseph view this as a mistake and cease the practice?

These are the very questions I have been trying to have answered throughout this thread, Jason.

The main question I have is why did Joseph feel the need to seal the wives of husbands who were faithful to the Church to himself? There were other husbands and wives that he sealed together. What was different about the wives that he sealed to himself? I guess from what we've gathered here so far, we may never know the answer to that question.

[_Yoda]

Hello all here,


rcrocket wrote:

I just don't think you are all that read. Henry was disfellowshipped for his relationship with Aseneth while on his mission. I don't see it all that difficult to see the circumstances which led to Zina's divorce of Henry. Most wives would do the same thing today.


Non-Celestial thread reference

Henry Jacobs was Not dis-fellow-shipped while he was on his Mission to Great Britain, and he was Not dis-fellow-shipped because of his relationship with Aseneth while on his mission to Great Britain. The Following information is from the LDS Apologist, Allen of 'FAIR':

Besides marrying Aseneth, there is evidence that Henry married Sarah Taylor in Arizona in 1850. 76 He was also disfellowshipped in January 1851, 77 in abstentia, apparently in relation to performing an unauthorized plural marriage for W.W. Phelps as Henry was traveling with Phelps to Winter Quarters from Cambria, New York. (Phelps was excommunicated for having entered the marriage; Henry was disfellowshipped for having performed the marriage.) 78

...

76 We don't know if this marriage was polygamous or not; it is based on family tradition, not on contemporaneous records. Perhaps the most solid evidence for such a marriage is in the late-life journal of Oliver Huntington, about thirteen years after Henry died. On October 9, 1899, Oliver was traveling in California. He recorded staying with "a man by the name of Ginger who married the woman that used to be Henry Jacobs wife, maiden name, Sarah Taylor." See Oliver B. Huntington, Diary of Oliver B. Huntington, 1842-1847, Part II (typescript, 1942), L. Tom Perry Special Collections, BYU, BX 8670.1 .H925, 440.

77 Journal History, 26 January 1851, LDS Church Archives

78 Henry did not learn of the disfellowshipment until some time later, first mentioning it in a September 1858 letter to Zina. [Letter from Henry B. Jacobs, September 2, 1858, part of the Zina Card Brown Family Collection (1806-1972), LDS Church Archives, MS 4780, box 2, folder 2.]


( 'FAIR'. , Bold Emphasis Mine. )

Bob, I'm curious as to your response to this. Do you take the stand that the FARMS reference is inaccurate?

[_rcrocket]

I don't see a FARMS reference there. Looks like a FAIR source. Don't confuse me with FARMS or with FAIR. Don't demand that I defend either FARMS or FAIR. Don't quote FARMS or FAIR sources to me; I don't accept them except in isolated instances.

Henry was "silenced" for what he did in England relating to both the Phelps incident and the new wife.

[_Yoda]

I don't see a FARMS reference there. Looks like a FAIR source. Don't confuse me with FARMS or with FAIR. Don't demand that I defend either FARMS or FAIR. Don't quote FARMS or FAIR sources to me; I don't accept them except in isolated instances.

Henry was "silenced" for what he did in England relating to both the Phelps incident and the new wife.

Sorry. It's a FAIR source, written by Allen Wyatt and cross-referenced with material from the LDS Church Archives.

Silly me for thinking that you would consider this a reliable source.

When you say that you don't accept FARMS or FAIR references except in isolated instances, would those isolated instances be when they can prove your point right instead of wrong?

If this is an inaccurate reference, what is the source that you are gleaning your information from regarding why Henry was disfellowshipped?