Questions for Mormons

[ttribe]

I meant polyandry.

That it happened or that it is a correct practice now?

[marts1]

That it would be a correct principle period would amaze me.

[Vanhin]

And check this out.

Individual Record

Regards,

Vanhin

[ttribe]

That it would be a correct principle period would amaze me.

Hmmm. Well, Joseph seemed to think it was for at least some period of time prior to his death. Now, undoubtedly, some of these sealings were dynastic and others were clearly a matter of attempting to provide a vital ordinance to certain women who might not otherwise be able to partake of the sealing ordinances (husband was a non-member, etc.).

What is still not clear (IMO) today is what the purpose was of certain sealings in which the husband was an active and worthy member (see Orson Pratt here).

Frankly, there are some unanswered questions regarding the early practices of sealings and polygamy and I am unsure there are even any records in existence which would clarify the matter.

[ttribe]

And check this out.

Individual Record

Regards,

Vanhin

Interestingly enough, a couple of those "marriages" are post-1844. Small problem there. Nevertheless, most of them are not.

[pyxiwulf]

Okay, so I used the wrong word because I have a toothache and google is too much trouble right now but I'm still confused on the fact that these women were still married when sealed the to the Prophet. was this a principle at the time? what's the deal?

[ttribe]

Okay, so I used the wrong word because I have a toothache and google is too much trouble right now but I'm still confused on the fact that these women were still married when sealed the to the Prophet. was this a principle at the time? what's the deal?

Again, you should start by reading these - FAIR Topical Guide: Polyandry

[marts1]

I can understand being sealed to a member wife of a non member husband somewhat. I would not understand if relations were also involved.

[Vanhin]

Interestingly enough, a couple of those "marriages" are post-1844. Small problem there. Nevertheless, most of them are not.

Not a problem to early LDS... and it only goes to show that "sealings" were often dynastic, as you pointed out.

Joseph Smith was not "married" to all of his wives in the cunjugal sense, but was sealed to them.

Regards,

Vanhin

[ttribe]

I can understand being sealed to a member wife of a non member husband somewhat. I would not understand if relations were also involved.

That's the mystery. Very little evidence; a lot of speculation, and the only verifiable descendants are through Emma.

[ttribe]

Not a problem to early LDS... and it only goes to show that "sealings" were often dynastic, as you pointed out.

Joseph Smith was not "married" to all of his wives in the cunjugal sense, but was sealed to them.

Regards,

Vanhin

True, not "all". But there were some, undoubtedly. Several of them testified (under oath) in affidavits regarding their "marriages" to Joseph Smith in an early legal dispute between the Church and the RLDS.

[pyxiwulf]

This is all very interesting. I'll have to transfer those docs from fairlds to my phone for reading later. thanks.

[Vanhin]

My parents were sealed to each other long after their divorce, and while still married to their new spouses.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

True, not "all". But there were some, undoubtedly. Several of them testified (under oath) in affidavits regarding their "marriages" to Joseph Smith in an early legal dispute between the Church and the RLDS.

Yeah, but clearly not with those of post 1844, for sure.

Vanhin

[JohnOF123]

I want the OP to come back! Wonder what he thinks? or if he exists, lol.

[marts1]

And if I'm remembering correctly Emma did not stay with the church.

[ttribe]

Yeah, but clearly not with those of post 1844, for sure.

Vanhin

Now THAT would be impressive!

[ttribe]

And if I'm remembering correctly Emma did not stay with the church.

You are remembering correctly. But, I'm not sure I understand what your point might be with stating this fact.

Edited February 22, 2010 by ttribe

[ttribe]

I want the OP to come back! Wonder what he thinks? or if he exists, lol.

Drive-by "witnessing" under false pretenses - that's my educated guess.

[Vanhin]

I want the OP to come back! Wonder what he thinks? or if he exists, lol.

This is a re-occuring thread opening. It seems somewhere out there in Internetland, or in some "ministry" are instructions for going to LDS sites and posing as someone who is doing research and asking questions like this to "stump the Mormons". Each question, is linked to typical and historic critiscisms from anti-Mormons. These questions have been answered over and over again... Here are a couple of samples from the past of what I am talking about.

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/4424-i-have-6-questions.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/learn-about-mormon-church/25950-few-questions.html

I know there are more if I spend time searching them. But it just seems so familiar, all with the theme, "I am researching Mormonism and I have a few questions...".

Anyone else notice this?

Regards,

Vanhin

[ttribe]

Anyone else notice this?

Regards,

Vanhin

Yes. Here and elsewhere. Hence my skepticism from the beginning. That combination of questions wasn't random; at all.

[marts1]

Another thing that dosen't quite click is that these non member husbands would allow this to happen.

[ttribe]

Another thing that dosen't quite click is that these non member husbands would allow this to happen.

I don't know what to tell you. Did you read the links to the FAIR articles? Some of your questions might get answered there.

[marts1]

I plan to do some reading there.

[ttribe]

I plan to do some reading there.

It would be a good idea. I'll admit - when I first heard of some of polyandry, it set me back on my heels a bit. I found Katich's "A Tale of Two Marriage Systems..." to be the most helpful to me.