discussing polyandry with the missionaries

[LA Ute]

LA, I don't know if this will shed any light, but...

The Preface of The Joseph Smith Papers, Journals, V. 1 (I have a copy of it in front of me) reads, "The Joseph Smith Papers are being prepared under the auspices of the office of the historian of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and published by The Church Historian's Press." I share that in case you're not familiar with the Papers or question who signed off on the content of the publication. In the General Introduction section, page XXX, it reads, "During his lifetime, he was married to approximately thirty women. Although conjugal relations were apparently involved, he spent little time with these women, the need for secrecy and the demands on his time keeping them apart." Isn't it logical to presume that the only way higher-ups at the COB would allow the statement I've bolded to be published is if they have in their possession evidence to back it up? else why print it? For those who don't have the book, trust that I'm not taking the above out of context; it doesn't later say anything like "The apparent conjugal relations were only with the non-polyandrous wives" -- the reference to conjugal relations comes immediately after the reference to ~30 wives.

And in case anyone is wondering, the FARMS review of Compton's book that LA references above, under the heading "Status of Women at the Time They Were Sealed to Joseph Smith", lists JS as having 29 wives, 8 which were polyandrous marriages. (In case you were wondering if the "approximately thirty women" included the polyandrous ones).

Thanks, scottie, I did have that and appreciate the reminder of what is said there. See my comments just below.

[RobinFinderson]

Plenty of folks on this board know that I support the choice of consenting adults to experiment and write their own rules of sexual propriety. So theoretically I am not against polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, or any other arrangement, so long as every adult involved was well informed of the 'rules' and made the choice following their own free will.

But this isn't what Joseph did. Whatever else people here want to call it, when you have sex with anyone other than your spouse, and your spouse is left to think that you are faithful, this is infidelity.

Joseph Smith practiced infidelity. How does anyone square that circle?

[marsupial]

Plenty of folks on this board know that I support the choice of consenting adults to experiment and write their own rules of sexual propriety. So theoretically I am not against polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, or any other arrangement, so long as every adult involved was well informed of the 'rules' and made the choice following their own free will.

But this isn't what Joseph did. Whatever else people here want to call it, when you have sex with anyone other than your spouse, and your spouse is left to think that you are faithful, this is infidelity.

Joseph Smith practiced infidelity. How does anyone square that circle?

I was telling danimal last night, the only difference I see between Bill Clinton and Joseph Smith in this regards is that one denied the sexual relations and the other said God told him to. Both answers seem to insult my intelligence.

[SeattleUte]

I am not terribly interested in historical Church controversies at a granular level.

Something else you and I have in common.

[Rosebud]

One significant difference, RB. Presumably, everyone entering into a polygamous relationship does so with eyes wide open. In other words it is a choice made with all of the facts in hand. Polygamy could be fair to the women if the addition of future wives required the full consent of all prior wives (Joseph Smith certainly wasn't fair on this point. I'm just outlining a form of polygamy that would be hypothetically fair).

Polyandry too could be fair, if the first husbands gave their consent.

But you are right in pointing out that polygamy, as practiced by Joseph (keeping it a secret from Emma), is the same breach of trust as polyandry, as practiced by Joseph (keeping it a secret from the other husbands). But all of these system, if practiced in the light of day by consenting adults, could be fair.

"Fair" is hard to define because people often make such decisions after being subjected to physical, psychological, economic or spiritual coercion.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I was telling danimal last night, the only difference I see between Bill Clinton and Joseph Smith in this regards is that one denied the sexual relations and the other said God told him to. Both answers seem to insult my intelligence.

I agree with what you said here.

[Indy Coug]

"Fair" is hard to define because people often make such decisions after being subjected to physical, psychological, economic or spiritual coercion.

No one lives in a vacuum and it is IMPOSSIBLE to make any decision bereft of physical, psychological, economic or spiritual influences. Why would polygamy or polyandry be any different, even in "ideal" conditions? I'm not talking about Joseph Smith's practice of it, I'm not talking about African tribesman and I'm not talking about Muslims.

The coercion card is overplayed and usually is just flat out a false characterization.

[Taq Man]

Who are you? Introduce yourself properly.

Done and Done.

[ERCougar]

No one lives in a vacuum and it is IMPOSSIBLE to make any decision bereft of physical, psychological, economic or spiritual influences. Why would polygamy or polyandry be any different, even in "ideal" conditions? I'm not talking about Joseph Smith's practice of it, I'm not talking about African tribesman and I'm not talking about Muslims.

The coercion card is overplayed and usually is just flat out a false characterization.

The "coercion card is overplayed" card is also overplayed, usually in an attempt to dismiss legitimate concerns of coercion.

[RobinFinderson]

"Fair" is hard to define because people often make such decisions after being subjected to physical, psychological, economic or spiritual coercion.

True, but at some point we just have to accept the choices made by adults. Everyone is more or less damaged, so nothing is ever really "fair."

[SeattleUte]

Here is a very fine short story by E.L. Doctorow, published in the New Yorker, about a man who joins a cult with his wife. The setting is contemporary but Joseph Smith and his movement and personal sexual abuses with wives of his trusting disciples clearly were the inspiration (by the way, I believe Doctorow spent some time at the University of Utah, while he was writing Ragtime; someone told me this once; I don't have a link). I found the story quite chilling. Anyway, if you want to be transported into the mind of the cuckold in a situation involving a polyandrist cult leader this might give you a glimpse.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/200...0512fi_fiction

[Solon]

True, but at some point we just have to accept the choices made by adults. Everyone is more or less damaged, so nothing is ever really "fair."

Are we using "polygamy" in this thread to mean "polygyny," a specific type of polygamy (as is polyandry)?

Polyandry, Polygyny, It's all polygamy to me.

[Indy Coug]

The "coercion card is overplayed" card is also overplayed, usually in an attempt to dismiss legitimate concerns of coercion.

I know that you know that I know that you know I know. That's it! You've just been put on double secret probation!

[JohnnyLingo]

Are you planning on bringing up the fact that Joseph was a Mason during their next visit, danimal?

[Indy Coug]

What would the constructive purpose be to bring up Masonry or polyandry with the missionaries? Just curious....