How old were you when you first learned JS practiced polyandry?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

I like to read the obits and I always wonder what people would write about me if I were to die. I don't even want to know what some people that I've rubbed the wrong way would say about me.

Gary Crowton would be saddened to know that he lost a relative he never knew about.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Uncertain.

Interesting....

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/disp...=review&id=290

Here's an apologetic view of Joseph and his polyandric ways....

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Last I checked, Joseph Smith was a member in good standing too.

And to be clear (Jeff Lebowski, pay close attention here): I didn't accuse him of sensationalizing. I haven't even read his book. I've accused those in this thread of drawing conclusions that go contrary to what I personally see in the D&C. If someone wants to show me something besides Bushman--something that could even marginally fall under the "revealed" category--to support their claims, I stand ready to receive.

I'll see your mullah, and raise you two apostates. *Tex tosses two blue chips into the pile.*

You have been mocking/trivializing the book lately. As you are in this post. Which is kind of funny since you keep digging yourself a deeper hole.

As for your "challenge", are you asking for a revelation as proof that JS practiced polyandry? What does that have to do with history? Looks like a poorly attempted dodge.

And BTW, Bushman was not the first one to write about JS's polyandy. Not by a long shot.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

I thought it was a great read, but I would put it in the marginally apologetic category. Especially with his wacky justification of the family treasure seeking trend leading into God preparing the Smiths to accept Joseph's story.

Exactly. Which is why it is embarassing to see Tex paint it as a polemic.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Interesting....

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/disp...=review&id=290

Here's an apologetic view of Joseph and his polyandric ways....

...

Reliable evidence indicates that Joseph Smith fathered some children through his plural marriages with single women, but that evidence does not necessarily support intimacy with polyandrous wives. Compton's own discussion of "Sexuality in Joseph Smith's Plural Marriages" (pp. 12–15) is muddled. He generalizes without specifying which category (single, widowed, divorced, separated, married) of plural wives supposedly took part in this most private aspect of plural marriage. For example, Compton concludes this discussion: "Though it is possible that Joseph had some marriages in which there were no sexual relations, there is no explicit or convincing evidence for this. . . . And in a significant number of marriages, there is evidence for sexual relations" (p. 15). Which marriages? Compton does not specify or quantify or document his generalized conclusion that "in a significant number" of these plural marriages Joseph Smith had sexual contact with his partner. If by "significant" Compton implies that a majority of these marriages had what he terms the "sexual dimension," his statement is not supported by the data he presents. But Compton several times extrapolates with unwarranted confidence, as in the case of Zina Huntington Jacobs: "Nothing specific is known about sexuality in their marriage, though judging from Smith's other marriages, sexuality was probably included" (p. 82). This is an example of many questionable conclusions in this book that are overly broad, nonspecific, or undocumented.

[Indy Coug]

More...

The major flaw in Todd Compton's work is the unjustified theorizing on what he calls "polyandry," in practice using it in the traditional definition of a woman with full relations with multiple husbands. As the table and discussion above show, Joseph was sealed to twenty-one women who were unmarried or widowed. Nearly all indications of sexual relations pertain to these marriages. The table and discussion also show that Joseph was sealed to eight women with an existing marriage. In one marriage, that of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, there was a pregnancy, which, according to family tradition, Sylvia related to the time when her husband "was out of fellowship with the Church" (p. 183). As stated in the above discussion on polyandry, even this is not shown to be a concurrent sexual relationship with two husbands. For the remaining seven sealings of Joseph to married women, there is no reliable evidence that these involved sexual relationships. With one known exception, we know only that the ceremony gave these married women the right to be joined to Joseph Smith in the next world. Sources simply do not show a "marital triangulation" in these cases.

and...

If we had the benefit of Joseph Smith's explanation for each of his plural marriages, we would be in a better position to judge the motives and depth of his relationships but, since we do not, wisdom and prudence dictate that we withhold many judgments until we do. Biographers in this area are tempted to create historical fiction, which purports to read minds and furnish all answers, but serious history cannot run ahead of responsible source materials.

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

More...



and...

[/b]

Hmmm...so I guess I don't have to call and have my membership records removed because JS was a womanizer yet. Good news.

[fusnik11]

Indy, did you read that the authors admitted to at least 4 polyandric relationships, with one possibly being sexual?

I think Bushman puts the number of polyandric wives at 8 but I could be mixing up my facts as it's been a long time since reading the book.

I think it's safe to say on top of being a polygamist he was a polyandrist. Agree or disagree?

Now that we are in agreement, why wouldn't Joseph consummate these marriages?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You have been mocking/trivializing the book lately. As you are in this post. Which is kind of funny since you keep digging yourself a deeper hole.

As for your "challenge", are you asking for a revelation as proof that JS practiced polyandry? What does that have to do with history? Looks like a poorly attempted dodge.

And BTW, Bushman was not the first one to write about JS's polyandy. Not by a long shot.

I've been mocking/trivializing the somber importance people attach to the book; moreso the conclusions they appear to be drawing.

I'm not necessarily looking for revelatory of proof of polyandry (although it's absence should tell you something). I'm looking for scriptural evidence that Joseph was guilty of some of the beliefs/acts/teachings and the corresponding divine disdain/reproval/punishment suggested by the hypothesizing in this thread.

I'm certainly not painting Bushman's work as a polemic, although you seem intent on stuffing those words into my mouth.

Moreover, reading the book will not likely change my opinion, but I plan on doing so eventually. I suspect were I to read it and then post the same opinions, your anti-Tex accusation dial would just rotate from "you are ignorant" to "you are blind/stupid." There's not really room here for me to legimately disagree.

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Indy, did you read that the authors admitted to at least 4 polyandric relationships, with one possibly being sexual?

I think Bushman puts the number of polyandric wives at 8 but I could be mixing up my facts as it's been a long time since reading the book.

I think it's safe to say on top of being a polygamist he was a polyandrist. Agree or disagree?

Now that we are in agreement, why wouldn't Joseph consummate these marriages?

Someone tell me he didn't really ask that question.