Of all the aspects of church history I found polyandry to be the most surprising and the most shocking. But because I hold the Book of Mormon to be authentic and brought about how Joseph Smith stated. I have to give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt that his actions were not malicious in anyway.
Having given polyandry much thought I believe that those who also see Joseph Smith as a prophet who was not perfect in anyway should not have any problem with polyandry.
Because polyandry is not only practiced by the church today but sanctioned by the church. I believe that polyandry was practiced in Joseph Smiths day as it is practiced today. An example of how it is practiced today is as follows. There are thousands of women who are sealed to their husband widowed or get a divorce and get remarried to another man having the wedding officiated by their bishop and in some cases married in the temple for only time. In the churches eye, unless a temple divorce is sought after and granted the women is married to two men. In some cases a women will be married longer to their second husband in their mortal existence yet in the after life be with the man she is sealed to.
I would say that most people who were shocked and repulsed to hear about Joseph Smith’s polyandry but when it comes to our day when sealed divorced women marry again those same feeling are none existent.
Of course if you believe that Joseph Smith is a fraud and a crook these views will mean nothing to you. On the other hand, if you want to give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt polyandry practiced by him is no different than it is today.
Even though Bishops perform the secular marriage, it wouldn’t necessarily make it church-sanctioned. The fact that the Church has the anti-polyandry policy regarding Temple sealings shows more about where they stand on the subject. How many Mormon Bishops have officiated weddings for atheists or non-Mormons? That doesn’t mean that it’s recognized by the Church. In the Church’s eye, the Temple sealing is the only “true” marriage. My Dad was married in the Temple to someone else before he married my Mom, also in the Temple. After his divorce to his first wife, she stopped attending Church and remarried a non-member. My Father is currently sealed to two different women, even though his first wife is no longer active. The Church happily recognizes that my Dad has 2 wives through Temple sealings, but doesn’t recognize the ex’s second marriage. If my story remained the same with the genders reversed, it would not be possible through the Church’s policies. The Church does not allow polyandry in any form after the time of Joseph Smith. I have a challenge for you David, write this same post as if you were a woman. Imagine how you would feel if the Prophet of the Lord proposed to you after he just sent your husband on a mission. How would you react when he told you that you had to do it because an angel threatened him with a fiery sword or promised eternal blessings for your entire family? How would you feel after seeing the… Read more »
First of all do you know what the churches polices about temple marriage during Joseph Smith and Brigham Young’s time.
And second the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be. Joseph was flawed there is no doubt about that but he had had a divine mission to bring about the Book of Mormon and reestablish Gods Church on the earth.
We do not know all the details concerning Joseph Smiths sealing to all the women he was sealed to. Joseph Smith is dead from what I can tell the women he was married to besides saying he was flawed never said anything grievous concerning his character. If the women he was married to never said that I think that puts you in a position you cannot say anything worse then what they said about his flaws.
If you want to go after the jugular of the church you need to go after the Book of Mormon.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but isn’t your original post focused on how “polyandry is not only practiced by the church today but sanctioned by the church” and that this justifies Joseph’s polyandry? How do the policies of Temple marriage during Joseph/Brigham’s time change your original viewpoint? On that note, the official policies of the early church were against polygamy/polyandry see this notice in the Millennial Star, January 1844. How many holocaust survivors are on record saying how they feel about Hitler? By your logic, this means that they must have been okay with their treatment. Maybe it’s more accurate to pose the question like this: How many former Nazi’s are on record saying anything negative about Hitler? The Nazis were sucked in to believing that they were doing the right thing, when they really weren’t. Early Mormons, especially a lot of Joseph’s wives took to polygamy and defended it until their death. Does that really make it right? Just because someone isn’t on record saying anything grievous about someone’s character, doesn’t mean you can assume whatever you want. It seems that you’re also confusing opinions and facts. Your opinion is that Joseph is justified because of how you perceive the Church’s actions today. I presented facts in the form of official statements from the church, which you ignored. You also stated your opinion that the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be, defending Joseph’s criminal actions (by today’s standards) because he was on a divine mission from God to restore… Read more »
Comparing polygamy which has been practiced for thousands of years to what Adolf Hitler did is ridiculous. If polygamy is as bad as you make it out to be it would not have been practiced by millions of people throughout the world for thousands of years. Marriage and family is obviously important to Gods plan and at the time it needed to be changed to allow for a revelation that polygamy is also part and has been a part of Gods plan. In the Book of Mormon, it condemns polygamy but also states that polygamy is practiced when approved by God to allow for more growth for larger growth of his church. Jacob 2:30 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. If it was not for polygamy I doubt the church would be where it is today. The restored church was in its infancy and doctrines and practices of the church came about when questions and needs about such doctrines and practices became apparent. To expect that all the churches doctrines and policies to be in place on the day the church was restored is ideal but idealism and reality don’t always mix. Christ taught people line upon line precept upon precept as they were ready and continues to do so today. It’s also ridiculous to say that no changes to revelation cannot be made when more understanding and knowledge about revelations… Read more »
My point was that assuming one of Joseph’s wives must have loved Joseph and approved of everything he did because the lack of evidence is the same as assuming a former Nazi must have loved Hitler because it’s not on record. What are your thoughts on slavery, human sacrifice, racism, genocide or sex trade? Those atrocious acts have been practiced for thousands of years too, does that make it okay? You’re spending so much time defending polygamy that I think you’ve forgotten your original point (The LDS Church practices polyandry today and this justifies Joseph’s practice). How many times is polyandry approved of in the scriptures?
Perhaps I am idealistic and have unreasonable expectations of the Church. I think it might come from being raised hearing that the LDS Church stands apart from any other institution on earth because it is the only one directed by the Lord. I could totally understand imperfect servants of the Lord to misunderstand revelations, but at what point does God step in before so many lives are destroyed? What was God’s plan when he commanded Joseph to be sealed to other men’s wives? Those women could have been sealed to their original husbands and received eternal glory without Joseph stepping in.
I very much agree with your comment about polyandry and its practice today if you give Joseph the benefit of the doubt! From today’s perspective, however, especially in light of Dr. Michael Newton’s research discoveries presented in his books on “life between lives” all that temple sealing stuff ‘revealed’ by Joseph, and still promoted and practiced in the LDS Church, is unfortunately moot.
ENK
Dear David,
Don’t try to be an apologist — it doesn’t work. No matter how much deodoriser you use to cover up bad smells, eventually the bad smells resurface. Your example of Polyandry doesn’t fit with the marriages of Zina Huntington Jacobs Smith Young. She was married to her husband Henry Jacobs, then whilst still married to him was sealed to Joseph and when Joseph was assassinated, Brigham thought is was his right to have her sealed to him and sired a child with her, all whilst poor old Henry was still living and fully in love with Zina. I think that just about some up the value of polyandry as a principle.
Zina Huntington was a social activist and religious leader. She was the churches third general relief society president until the day she died. She felt that she needed to be sealed not only to Joseph Smith but to Brigham Young after Joseph Smith was murdered and Joseph Smith and Brigham Young felt the same way
Current modern day prophets and apostles have remarried during their call as a prophet or apostle. I would agree though that Zina sealing to two prophets is unique. I do not know of any other women who has been in that situation.
It doesn’t help your argument to ignore her legal husband who loved her all of his life and had been screwed over by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. How about your wife David? Are you willing to give her to Dallin Oaks? If she is willing, would you do it? Most of us find this morally wrong and a breach of one of the Ten Commandments.
My wife is not a piece of property. If my wife chose to divorce me and marry Dallin H Oaks. I would have been mad at my wife and Dallin H Oaks. But ultimately my wife is free to live her life any way she sees fit.
Interesting how you include the condition of divorce. Zina was never divorced from her first husband and he remained in love with her the rest of his life. Would you still be good with your wife remaining legally married to you while having an unlawful marriage to Dallin Oaks or another General Authority and birthing children from him? Would that be acceptable in the eyes of the God that you worship? Because it isn’t acceptable for most people who consider it morally wrong. Keep that up front when you try to defend Joseph Smith and Brigham Young’s sexual conquests. I have little use for defenders of adultery.
From all indications her marriage to Henry was cancelled. Henry Jacob remarried and Zina willingly was sealed to and lived with and bore a child to Brigham Young.
The history is messy. Church history is not at all wrapped up in a little pink bow as what was made out to be when I was in seminary. That being said nobodies life to include the lives of all apostles and prophets have lived lives without controversy. The church itself is not built upon church history.
David, there was no divorce. That is not a matter of “history is messy”, it is simply a fact that no divorce ever took place. David, your defense of adultery makes me sick.