What lies did the Nauvoo Expositor print?

[_Fifth Columnist]

• 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).

When you consider the totality of the evidence, I think Compton was correct that sexuality was probably involved in the polyandrous marriages. Here is what Compton said.

Thus, there are only four polyandrous wives [out of eleven] who left us significant evidence about the marriage to Smith. Of these cases, one explicitly said she had a child by Smith, and two others affirmed that the marriages were for time as well as eternity. Another strongly hinted in a formal affidavit that the marriage had been consummated.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/ ... vhmk5.html

• These marriages were a means of forging dynastic links where no marriagable daughter was available (Helen Mar Kimball barely made the cut).

This does nothing to quell the problem unless you are implying that dynastic marriages were devoid of sex. I hope you aren't arguing that because it flies in the face of the evidence.

[Guest]

Well, I appreciate your answer. The marrying other men's wives behind their back is, on its face, difficult to justify.

I know you are a good guy, but I really hope you are not serious here.

But we should keep in mind a couple of things about Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages:

They weren't regular marriages, but sealings.

None of them were except for Emma. This is not different then all the other examples of people Like Bent.

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).

Of course he didn't, he was keeping it secret. Since BY and other did in Utah, I think it likely that Joseph would have as well. BY even sent away the only man who was married to one of his wives, and she moved in shortly after. She was of course married to Joseph as well. Now if Joseph has sex with Silvia, then obviously you need to be arguing he had the right to have sex with the others, and it is very plausible that he did. They are after all still marriages, even if not of the normal variety.

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.

He did in some cases but not in others. That he could wait until some got home says a lot.

These marriages were a means of forging dynastic links where no marriagable daughter was available (Helen Mar Kimball barely made the cut).

Others have already brought up that Joseph was probably interested in more then just sex, but I see no reason that God would force Joseph to do the things he did. He broke his own rules(or Gods). Joseph would have been better off just talking a few willing women, and not behind Emma's back) and then introducing it to others, but how he did it tells us a lot on where he got the idea for doing it.

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

Is that because I am an evil apostate who still goes to church sometimes, or because I shouldn't find it persuasive? :)

[_Fifth Columnist]

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).

There is no evidence to suggest that the polyandrous marriages were devoid of sex. It is simply wishful thinking on the part of apologists.

Consider the evidence we have:
- Joseph Smith had sex with one polyandrous wife. This brings up the question of why the others should be viewed differently.
- Joseph Smith likely had sex with another polyandrous wife. Zina Huntington testified that she was Joseph's wife in very deed.
- Two other polyandrous wives were married to Joseph for time and eternity.
- We have no other evidence from the rest of the polyandrous wives (the other seven).
- The only justification for marrying multiple wives in the Book of Mormon is to "raise up seed."
- There is absolutely nothing to contradict the evidence that sex was likely a part of the polyandrous marriages.

I agree that Joseph's relationship with Helen was likely not sexual.

I have not researched Nancy Winchester or Fanny Young.

[_Kishkumen]

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.

Hey, thanks, stemplebuddy! I appreciate you popping in to demonstrate your integrity in quoting my entire post. Hey, just joshin'! You totally rock. Don't be too serious about my playful reply! Simma down now, you awesome dude.

[_Nevo]

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?

I don't have time right now to lay out all of the arguments. Regarding the polyandrous marriages, see Brian Hale's article "The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Lyon Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny" and his chapter in the book The Persistence of Polygamy. I've made my case for Helen Mar Kimball elsewhere on the board and I'm inclined to put Nancy Maria Winchester in the same category. I'll give my reasons for Fanny Young later if I think of it.

[_Themis]

I don't have time right now to lay out all of the arguments. Regarding the polyandrous marriages, see Brian Hale's article "The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Lyon Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny" and his chapter in the book The Persistence of Polygamy. I've made my case for Helen Mar Kimball elsewhere on the board and I'm inclined to put Nancy Maria Winchester in the same category. I'll give my reasons for Fanny Young later if I think of it.

I am not sure how this is relevant. No one is saying he had sex with all of them, only that he did with many including some who had living husbands. Even BY did with one. You really should be above this bad apologetic about marriages and sealings, given that BY and company went public after they arrived in Utah and their wives moved in and started having children. Are we to believe that Joseph was supposed to be somehow different or above this?

[_Nevo]

Nevo: You stated that any sex Joseph Smith had would not have been adulterous because Joseph Smith had secured marriages and consent for all parties involved. But that's not true, is it? Poor Emma did not approve of them, nor did she consent when it mattered. If a man who is already married marries another woman in secret, he is cheating. If Emma had agreed from the beginning, then it would not have been adulterous. How do you justify that?

Hi Spurven. Sorry for the late reply.

How do I justify Joseph marrying women without Emma's consent? Well, he tried to get Emma's consent but she wouldn't give it. And when she eventually did give it, she soon withdrew it—though she seems to have remained conflicted right until Joseph left for Carthage (see the blessing she wrote for herself, quoted in Newell and Avery's Mormon Enigma).

Given Emma's intransigence (and who could blame her really?), and given his perception that his time was short (see the Esplin article I cited for more on this), what other choice did Joseph have if he really believed—as I think he did—that he would be "destroyed" if he failed to take additional wives?

Was Joseph correct? I don't know. If so, it raises the troubling theological question of why God would place Joseph and Emma in such a difficult situation, one that brought them so much grief and pain. But then the Hebrew God has been known to make difficult demands of his servants.

[Guest]

How do I justify Joseph marrying women without Emma's consent? Well, he tried to get Emma's consent but she wouldn't give it. When she eventually did, she soon withdrew it—though she seems to have remained conflicted right until Joseph left for Carthage (see the blessing she wrote for herself, quoted in Newell and Avery's Mormon Enigma).

Given Emma's intransigence (and who could blame her really?), and given his perception that his time was short (see the Esplin article I cited for more on this), what other choice did Joseph have if he really believed—as I think he did—that he would be "destroyed" if he failed to take additional wives?

Was Joseph correct? I don't know. If so, it raises the troubling theological question of why God would place Joseph and Emma in such a difficult situation, one that brought them so much grief and pain. But then the Hebrew God has been known to make difficult demands of his servants.

Is there any evidence that he tried to get Emma's consent in advance of Fanny Algers?

[_Mad Viking]

These marriages were a means of forging dynastic links...

What does this actually mean?

Are we talking about dynastic link like the dynastic links that were forged througout European royalty through the marriages of royalty to royalty from different countries? If so, why would that be necessary in the CK?

If not, what are we talking about exactly?

Additionally, could not have "dynastic links" been make through celestial adoption. Like in the case of Brigham Young and John Lee. Lee was sealed to Brigham as his son. Would this not constitute a dynastic link? It certainly didn't carry any of the lead laden luggage with it that polygamy/polyandry did.

[_Runtu]

Hi Spurven. Sorry for the late reply.

How do I justify Joseph marrying women without Emma's consent? Well, he tried to get Emma's consent but she wouldn't give it. And when she eventually did give it, she soon withdrew it—though she seems to have remained conflicted right until Joseph left for Carthage (see the blessing she wrote for herself, quoted in Newell and Avery's Mormon Enigma).

This is crucial. What evidence do we have that he asked for her consent before marrying his other wives? There is evidence that he did so after the fact with the Partridge sisters, but do you have something specific in mind? Certainly there is no evidence that he asked Emma's permission before entering into a relationship with Fanny Alger.

It seems to me that the evidence points the other way: the secrecy came first, and Emma's intransigence came after.

Given Emma's intransigence (and who could blame her really?), and given his perception that his time was short (see the Esplin article I cited for more on this), what other choice did Joseph have if he really believed—as I think he did—that he would be "destroyed" if he failed to take additional wives?

This argument doesn't make sense unless he approached Emma first and then, after she refused, he was forced to practice polygamy clandestinely. I don't see any evidence for that.

Was Joseph correct? I don't know. If so, it raises the troubling theological question of why God would place Joseph and Emma in such a difficult situation, one that brought them so much grief and pain. But then the Hebrew God has been known to make difficult demands of his servants.

I wonder if the Hebrew God demanded that Joseph attack the reputations of Sarah Pratt, Nancy Rigdon, and Martha Brotherton.

Again, if that's what God is like, no thank you. I can't worship a being like that.