Brother Crockett vs...?

[_Coggins7]

Now, uh...what was the point of this thread again?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I don't see where critics claim Joseph Smith married only to satisfy his libido. He also tested the obedience of his followers this way. Other reasons were power and standing in this life and the next. His marriages weren't marriages in the "normative" sense either. He didn't set up happy households with these women. These relationships were apparently restricted to the occasional tryst if even that. He was a busy man, I think we can all agree. These marriages were pretty meaningless as far as this life goes, but I'm sure they're all going to be just as happy as mud ducks in the Celestial Kingdom.

[_Coggins7]

What is the purpose of "plural marriage" if not to have those women who are "sealed" to the man be "wives?"

In eternity, yes...

If they are not wives, why are they not called "wards" instead, or adoptive children, or "nieces." Even the LDS Church regards those women as "wives," whether in this world or the next.

What is the point of sealing those particular women up to Joseph Smith, if not to have them be "wives?"

The point is, of course, for any critic, given the concept of "spiritual marriage" as understood in the nineteenth century, to show that such sealings involved actual marriage in the normative, sociological sense.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

What exactly do you consider to be the "normative sense?"

Living with them in a household and engaging in sexual relations with them.

What is the purpose of "plural marriage" if not to have those women who are "sealed" to the man be "wives?" If they are not wives, why are they not called "wards" instead, or adoptive children, or "nieces." Even the LDS Church regards those women as "wives," whether in this world or the next.

What is the point of sealing those particular women up to Joseph Smith, if not to have them be "wives?"

What do we expect? When backed into a corner concerning horses, cows, steel, etc in the Book of Mormon, the mo'pologists simply state that the word does not mean the same thing as what society has defined it to be.

What? No evidence of horses? oh well they probably meant deer or tapirs!

What? No evidence of Book of Mormon steel smelting? Well the must have meant really hard wood, or sharp rocks!

What? Smith was married to many women "to raise up righteous seed"? Oh well, eeehhheeem, ummm, you see, the term wife does not imply sexual relations!

Truth in Book of Mormon historicity? That depends on if the truth came from praying!

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

What is the purpose of "plural marriage" if not to have those women who are "sealed" to the man be "wives?"

In eternity, yes...

If they are not wives, why are they not called "wards" instead, or adoptive children, or "nieces." Even the LDS Church regards those women as "wives," whether in this world or the next.

What is the point of sealing those particular women up to Joseph Smith, if not to have them be "wives?"

The point is, of course, for any critic, given the concept of "spiritual marriage" as understood in the nineteenth century, to show that such sealings involved actual marriage in the normative, sociological sense.

I don't think you are quite understanding Hana's point here. I think it's a good one. I've wondered about it myself. The excuse for polygamy has often been a surplus of needy women. Well, needy women can be helped in better ways than by marrying them.

As for your definition of "normative," are you saying that he couldn't have had sex with his wifes unless he had established a household with them? Nobody is criticizing Joseph Smith for setting up households with plural wives because everybody knows he didn't do that. He is being criticized for having sex with them. Or would you rather debate an argument that nobody is making?

[_the road to hana]

What is the purpose of "plural marriage" if not to have those women who are "sealed" to the man be "wives?"

In eternity, yes...

If they already belonged to other men, and were other men's wives, it is still problematic. How are they to be wives "in the normative sense" in the eternities if they already belong to other men?

If they are not wives, why are they not called "wards" instead, or adoptive children, or "nieces." Even the LDS Church regards those women as "wives," whether in this world or the next.

What is the point of sealing those particular women up to Joseph Smith, if not to have them be "wives?"

The point is, of course, for any critic, given the concept of "spiritual marriage" as understood in the nineteenth century, to show that such sealings involved actual marriage in the normative, sociological sense.

You use the term "normative," but the sociological institution that created marriage "norms" as observed in 19th century society was actually the Christian Church, and not any secular institution. As others have noted, there would be nothing "normative" about marrying other men's wives, or marrying multiple wives, or marrying women with intent to be celibate in this life but procreative and sexual in the next.

Further, there is nothing "normative" about the concept of "spiritual marriage," as the term is really an oxymoron in any sense of what would be considered normative. The concept of marriage as handed down in both Old and New Testaments, and well known in the 19th century, involved a man and a woman cleaving to each other to become "one flesh." If it wasn't consummated, it wasn't a marriage. Period. There is no concept of "spiritual marriage," any more than there is a concept of "sexless intercourse."

[_Yong Xi]

Did BY or HCK have sex with their wives while in Nauvoo, or did they wait until they reached Utah? My guess is they did whatever Joseph Smith did. If Joseph Smith did not have sex with his plural wives in Nauvoo, then , perhaps, neither did other polygamous leaders.

When did God tell early polygamous men to start having sex?

[_Coggins7]

As for your definition of "normative," are you saying that he couldn't have had sex with his wifes unless he had established a household with them? Nobody is criticizing Joseph Smith for setting up households with plural wives because everybody knows he didn't do that. He is being criticized for having sex with them. Or would you rather debate an argument that nobody is making?

He may have had sex with some of them (but then, where are the descendants?), but if these were his marriages to unmarried woman, that's one thing. The question is, did he have sex with those he was sealed to who were already married?

If so, let's see the evidence from a body of plausibly reliable historical sources

[Guest]

Did BY or HCK have sex with their wives while in Nauvoo, or did they wait until they reached Utah? My guess is they did whatever Joseph Smith did. If Joseph Smith did not have sex with his plural wives in Nauvoo, then , perhaps, neither did other polygamous leaders.

When did God tell early polygamous men to start having sex?

Exactly. Why would Smith be the only polygamous prophet to not have sex with his extra wives?

The supposed old testament prophets had sex, and so did all of the Mormons the he commanded into the practice.

The mo'pologist all love to cite the "raising up righteous seed" Book of Mormon scripture, yet deny Smith followed that counsel, the examples of the men he was trying to emulate, and the men after him...

Perhaps he did have sex with his other girls and women but knew Emma would cut his nuts off if they showed up preggers, so he would "pull out" at the moment of ejaculation and spill his righteous seed on the ground?

[_the road to hana]

Did BY or HCK have sex with their wives while in Nauvoo, or did they wait until they reached Utah? My guess is they did whatever Joseph Smith did. If Joseph Smith did not have sex with his plural wives in Nauvoo, then , perhaps, neither did other polygamous leaders.

Again, one would have to ask what was the point of having a wife, or a marriage, if sex was not involved. And again, the point of this particular discussion is that some of these women were already "married" (in the normative sense) to other men.

When did God tell early polygamous men to start having sex?

The point of having a wife, or a concubine, was to have sex, and to raise up seed.