Brother Crockett vs...?

[_Coggins7]

If they already belonged to other men, and were other men's wives, it is still problematic.

Not at all if one understands the principle of revelation.

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.

I use "normative" only as a term designating cohabitation and sexual relations. The LDS sealing is for time and all eternity, and nothing in the sealing necessarily involves time at all, given the existence of eternal relationships.

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.

I didn't say it was normative nor that it should so be considered. Precisely my point. Many of these wives were understood to be sealed to Joseph as a means, if they endured to the end themselves, to exaltation they otherwise might not have been able to avail themselves of in this life. With the LDS Church one of the fastest growing religions in the world, such concerns have now been obviated, but at the time, the concerns were apparently quite different.

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."

Now, you need to go to the Old Testament and see the conditions and rules, under the Law of Moses, for plural marriage, as well as Abraham's, Issac's, Jacob's, and Moses' plural marriages. Next, you don't seem to understand that the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, as we understand it, is not a historical derivation of Old Testament and New Testament theology but a divinely revealed restoration of both the correct understanding of thsoe concepts but of lost knowledge and new knowledge as yet unrevealed in any dispensation.

Both the Old Testament and New Testament are, in any case, heavily redacted and fragmentary records, so the fact that you do not see such and such in them means less than you may think.

Have you read the Gospel of Philip, a particularly interesting and early Christian document?

[_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.

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.

Yes, that is my point. Certainly, BY and HCK had sex with their plural wives while in Nauvoo, as did Joseph.

Supposedly, Joseph Smith took other men's wives to "test" them. What was the test?

[_Coggins7]

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

That would be one aspect of having more than one wife. The raising up of righteous seed in spiritually mature, faithful families is a fundamental consideration inherent in the principle, but is that the sole concept as the Church understands it?

The aforementioned Gospel of Philip mentions at one point that the universe would not exist without the principle of marriage.

What might this imply?

[_Coggins7]

Supposedly, Joseph Smith took other men's wives to "test" them. What was the test?

What is your source for this claim?

[_Mister Scratch]

It seems the discussion is wandering away from the original debate proposition. As to the question of whether or not Joseph Smith married other men's wives: the answer is 'Yes, absolutely.'

That said, it seems to me that the discussion has shifted away from this towards the question of whether or not Joseph Smith had sex with his plural wives. Once again, I believe the answer is 'Yes, absolutely.' The best evidence apologists have against this is the claim that no children were born as a result of it. (Though this isn't known for certain.) I, for one, think this is a pretty crummy argument, and in any case it is wholly speculative. In all likelihood, in my opinion, Joseph Smith had sex with his plural wives, including Helen Mar.

[_the road to hana]

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

That would be one aspect of having more than one wife. The raising up of righteous seed in spiritually mature, faithful families is a fundamental consideration inherent in the principle, but is that the sole concept as the Church understands it?

By "Church," do you mean "LDS Church?" You'll have to answer that question yourself.

The question still stands, what would be the purpose of taking "wives," whether in spirit or deed, for present or future, if they already belong to other men?

The aforementioned Gospel of Philip mentions at one point that the universe would not exist without the principle of marriage.

What might this imply?

It sounds to me like an earlier version of "All you need is love," or "I'd like to buy the world a Coke."

More importantly, what do you think it means, and how do you think it relates to taking the wives of other men as either real or spiritual wives?

[_the road to hana]

It seems the discussion is wandering away from the original debate proposition. As to the question of whether or not Joseph Smith married other men's wives: the answer is 'Yes, absolutely.'

That said, it seems to me that the discussion has shifted away from this towards the question of whether or not Joseph Smith had sex with his plural wives. Once again, I believe the answer is 'Yes, absolutely.' The best evidence apologists have against this is the claim that no children were born as a result of it. (Though this isn't known for certain.) I, for one, think this is a pretty crummy argument, and in any case it is wholly speculative. In all likelihood, in my opinion, Joseph Smith had sex with his plural wives, including Helen Mar.

What would be the point of "marrying" them otherwise?

No point.

He could have adopted them. Didn't need to marry them.

[_moksha]

Bob proposed the following as a topic for a thorough airing of the relevant facts or evidence, among a larger list, to the degree such can be ascertained:

Did Joseph Smith marry other men's wives, and if so, why?

A topic that would require the alteration of history, in order to advance a winning argument, seems like a poor topic choice.

[_beastie]

When Angus Cannon, a Salt Lake City stake president, visited Joseph Smith III in 1905, the RLDS president asked rhetorically if these women were his father's wives, then "how was it that there was no issue from them." Cannon replied:
All I knew was that which Lucy Walker herself contends. They were so nervous and lived in such constant fear that they could not conceive. He made light of my reply. He said, "I am informed that Eliza Snow was a virgin at the time of her death." I in turn said, "Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked her the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, 'I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.'"
Cannon then mentioned that Sylvia Sessions Lyon, a plural wife of Smith, had had a child by him, Josephine Lyon Fisher. Josephine left an affidavit stating that her mother, Sylvia, when on her deathbed, told her that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. In addition, posterity (i.e., sexuality) was an important theological element in Smith's Abrahamic-promise justification for polygamy.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/insacred.htm

Josephine Lyon’s DNA cannot be tested, from what I understand, due to the fact that there are only female descendants in that line.

In addition, consider this from the same source:

Since there is a great deal of evidence that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with his wives, one wonders why he did not have more polygamous children. However, some of his children apparently grew up under other names, as Mary Lightner suggested. Furthermore, he may not have had numerous posterity because he was not able to visit his wives regularly, both because he was often hiding from the law and because Emma, his first wife, watched him carefully. In addition, polygamy was illegal. On top of these pressures, he soon had many wives, which made it more difficult to visit all of them frequently and regularly. Since polygamists generally had favorite wives, Smith probably neglected some of his. Finally, some of his wives were married to other men in polyandrous relationships, so such wives would probably have had children by their "first husbands," with whom they were cohabiting regularly, not by Joseph. All of these factors would have combined to limit the number of his children. However, it is clear that some of his plural wives did have children by him, if we can rely on the statements of George A. Smith, Josephine Fisher, and Elizabeth Lightner.

Despite this evidence, some have argued that Joseph did not have marital relations with his wives, using the following arguments: First, some conclude that Helen Mar Kimball, who married Smith when she was fourteen, did not have marital relations with him. This is possible, as there are cases of Mormons in Utah marrying young girls and refraining from sexuality until they were older. But the evidence for Helen Mar is entirely ambiguous, in my view.

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."

[_Coggins7]

That said, it seems to me that the discussion has shifted away from this towards the question of whether or not Joseph Smith had sex with his plural wives. Once again, I believe the answer is 'Yes, absolutely.'

Very well. What is the evidence for this claim, and what degree of certainty do you ascribe to it and why?