Brian Hale's FAIR Presentation on Sexual Polyandry

[_dblagent007]

Have any of you read Brian Hale's FAIR presentation? http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences ... do-we-find

If so, what are your thoughts? I haven't had a chance yet to read through the whole thing, but it seems to be pretty good even if his conclusions are a bit of a stretch. Also, I think Hales may have pushed the limits on interpreting Section 132 as condemning sexual polyandry (a woman having sex with both of her husbands).

[_Stormy Waters]

It is an interesting take for certain. I appreciate that he points out that he is currently the only researcher claiming non-sexual polyandry. I'd like to dig into his claims, and I'd love to see a critical response to his work.

[Guest]

It is an interesting take for certain. I appreciate that he points out that he is currently the only researcher claiming non-sexual polyandry. I'd like to dig into his claims, and I'd love to see a critical response to his work.

Michael Quinn provided a response at the 2012 MHA. I am not sure if a copy is available.

Edit to add.

Stormy,

I can email you a copy of Quinn's MHA response if you will PM me your email address.

[_just me]

My thoughts, with only reading the first couple paragraphs so far, is that it is sexist.

People are so sexist that they have a bigger problem with a woman having multiple husbands than a man having multiple wives.

Why???

Because people still in some way view women as belonging (ie property) to the husband, but not the other way around.

I believe this part might be in error:
"Four of the women couldn’t be sealed to their legal husbands because those husbands were not active Latter-day Saints. "

If I recall correctly, there are non-LDS women that were sealed to Joseph Smith and BY.

Actually, I have issue with most of that entire paragraph:
"And Joseph could be criticized that he was insensitive to those ten husbands, but none of them ever complained. We have no complaints from any of them. And there could be suspicions that Joseph coerced the women, but these are not supported by any kind of documentation. None of the women complained and we have good documentation that Joseph taught that the woman’s desires should be respected in every case. And there are at least five cases where women turned him down, and the only reason we know about it is that those women later talked about it. Joseph didn’t talk about it. He didn’t try to destroy their reputation. He didn’t castigate them. He just let it go, because that was their choice."

Really?!?! Joseph didn't try to destroy the reputation of any woman that turned him down? This is absolutely not true. There are women he publicly badmouthed and he threatened to ruin the reputation of Sarah Pratt.
There are men who were unhappy about the situation, certainly.

I find the mental gymnastics lol-worthy. I mean, you really have to twist and pretzel your brain to make this all "okay" according to Mormon sexuality laws.

"Looking at the timeline, we find that Windsor and Sylvia married in 1838. She conceives three children, then he’s excommunicated and that’s when they separate. It’s not a legal divorce, but she is then sealed to Joseph in a marriage that I argue would have superseded the legal marriage anyway, which would curtail any conjugality between Sylvia and Windsor. Josephine is conceived. Joseph Smith is killed. Windsor is rebaptized and then they come back together and the legal marriage is still intact."

[_Blixa]

My thoughts, with only reading the first couple paragraphs so far, is that it is sexist.

People are so sexist that they have a bigger problem with a woman having multiple husbands than a man having multiple wives.

Why???

Because people still in some way view women as belonging (ie property) to the husband, but not the other way around.

I believe this part might be in error:
"Four of the women couldn’t be sealed to their legal husbands because those husbands were not active Latter-day Saints. "

If I recall correctly, there are non-LDS women that were sealed to Joseph Smith and BY.

Actually, I have issue with most of that entire paragraph:
"And Joseph could be criticized that he was insensitive to those ten husbands, but none of them ever complained. We have no complaints from any of them. And there could be suspicions that Joseph coerced the women, but these are not supported by any kind of documentation. None of the women complained and we have good documentation that Joseph taught that the woman’s desires should be respected in every case. And there are at least five cases where women turned him down, and the only reason we know about it is that those women later talked about it. Joseph didn’t talk about it. He didn’t try to destroy their reputation. He didn’t castigate them. He just let it go, because that was their choice."

Really?!?! Joseph didn't try to destroy the reputation of any woman that turned him down? This is absolutely not true. There are women he publicly badmouthed and he threatened to ruin the reputation of Sarah Pratt.
There are men who were unhappy about the situation, certainly.

I find the mental gymnastics lol-worthy. I mean, you really have to twist and pretzel your brain to make this all "okay" according to Mormon sexuality laws.

"Looking at the timeline, we find that Windsor and Sylvia married in 1838. She conceives three children, then he’s excommunicated and that’s when they separate. It’s not a legal divorce, but she is then sealed to Joseph in a marriage that I argue would have superseded the legal marriage anyway, which would curtail any conjugality between Sylvia and Windsor. Josephine is conceived. Joseph Smith is killed. Windsor is rebaptized and then they come back together and the legal marriage is still intact."

I can't remember if you have drop box or not just me. I'll put a copy of the Quinn MHA response in my drop box for you. I've not had time to read it, but a quick glance showed me that he talks about the "no man ever complained" issue early on.

[_just me]

I can't remember if you have drop box or not just me. I'll put a copy of the Quinn MHA response in my drop box for you. I've not had time to read it, but a quick glance showed me that he talks about the "no man ever complained" issue early on.

I've got dropbox. What do you need to send me something? PM me!

[_Chap]

The "We haven't had any other complaints, sir/madam" is the time-honored resort of all organizations that don't give a flying fiddle about the people they ostensibly exist to serve. (Of course the early church organization was mainly there in order to serve Joseph Smith, in any case.)

And in any case, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, is it?. No records of men or women complaining may have survived (or at least have managed to escape from the church's vaults into the light of day) - but what do you expect? A carefully filed book labelled "Please inscribe your complaints about the unusual sexual demands of the Prophet of the Restoration here"?

[_badseed]

I believe this part might be in error:
"Four of the women couldn’t be sealed to their legal husbands because those husbands were not active Latter-day Saints. "

What about Nancy Marinda Johnson Hyde and Zina Huntington Jacobs? Both were married to faithful men before being sealed to Smith. Marinda's husband Orson was on a mission dedicating the Holy Land when Joseph was sealed to his wife. Zina declined being sealed to Smith in favor of Henry Jacobs in March or April only to be sealed to him in October or something like that— all the way along Henry was faithful.

Certainly the issue was just that these men were not active.

[_badseed]

Holy crap! Is it just me or did he says he thinks that Josephine Rosetta Lyon is Joseph's biological daughter?

I tend to agree with him. I think the evidence leans that way and if they can ever get the DNA worked out it will likely verify it, but I find it interesting that he's willing to admit it.

[Guest]

What about Nancy Marinda Johnson Hyde and Zina Huntington Jacobs? Both were married to faithful men before being sealed to Smith. Marinda's husband Orson was on a mission dedicating the Holy Land when Joseph was sealed to his wife. Zina declined being sealed to Smith in favor of Henry Jacobs in March or April only to be sealed to him in October or something like that— all the way along Henry was faithful.

Certainly the issue was just that these men were not active.

M. Quinn thinks that Huntington's sealing occurred prior to her being civilly married to Jacobs.

Three years earlier, Apostle Wilford Woodruff, as the officially appointed "Church
Historian" recorded the following in his "Historian's Private Journal":
Joseph Smith & Louisa Beaman were sealed May 1840 by Joseph B. Noble
Joseph Smith & Zina Huntington were sealed Oct. 27, 1840 by Dimick B. Huntington in
Nauvoo
Joseph Smith & Presinda [sic] Huntington were sealed Dec 11, 1840 by Dimick B.
Huntington in Nauvoo.

Thus, Zina Huntington was Joseph Smith's plural wife for ten months before her civil
marriage to Henry Jacobs on 7 March 1841.