Why no children from JS plural marriages?

[SaidNobody]

Having thought about it, I cannot provide a solid reason why I don't trust Brigham Young And yet have some trust for Joseph Smith. I do have my reasons but they are not necessarily based in evidence.

[asa]

It's that much harder to hide polygamy when polygamy is producing children. Other leaders were practicing polygamy before the move out west, right? How many children did they have? I think the children only came after they started practicing polygamy in public.

This is a key point. There were approximately 25 men who married polygamously during the 3 years 1842, 1843, and 1844 before Joseph's death.. They married at least a total of 50 women . How many children were born to these 50 unions over 3 years ? TWO !!. Anyone who deals with the lack of offspring from Josephs plural marriages has to deal with the same issue with respect to other polygamous unions of the same time period. That is the downright virtual nonexistence of offspring from 50 other such relationships during the same period. Speculation is fun but any theory must ultimately be tested by the hard irreducible evidence. It appears to me that all contemporary ( as opposed to 50 year old recollections from interested witnesses with their own ax to grind ) evidence requires us to explain the utter paucity of children born in these relationships when Joseph was alive. The evidence does not support the popular view of Joseph and his associates as a sexual predators or libertines. Sorry guys but we need to go where the evidence leads not where our wild imaginations would like to take us.

[Hagoth]

So Asa, do you subscribe to the apologetic answer that the women who testified in the Temple Lot case were compelled by the Utah leadership to lie about having sex with Joseph? Either Joseph had sex with those women or Brigham and friends forced them to lie in order to legitimize their own sexual excesses. Neither of those options is acceptable to the modern SLC church, but one of them has to be true.

[blazerb]

This is a key point. There were approximately 25 men who married polygamously during the 3 years 1842, 1843, and 1844 before Joseph's death.. They married at least a total of 50 women . How many children were born to these 50 unions over 3 years ? TWO !!. Anyone who deals with the lack of offspring from Josephs plural marriages has to deal with the same issue with respect to other polygamous unions of the same time period. That is the downright virtual nonexistence of offspring from 50 other such relationships during the same period. Speculation is fun but any theory must ultimately be tested by the hard irreducible evidence. It appears to me that all contemporary ( as opposed to 50 year old recollections from interested witnesses with their own ax to grind ) evidence requires us to explain the utter paucity of children born in these relationships when Joseph was alive. The evidence does not support the popular view of Joseph and his associates as a sexual predators or libertines. Sorry guys but we need to go where the evidence leads not where our wild imaginations would like to take us.

You don't have to have sex to be a sexual predator. As has been pointed out by Lindsay Hansen Park, JS may not have had sex with Helen Mar Kimball, but he still controlled her sexuality. She was not allowed to be a normal teenager and go to dances, hang out with friends, etc. Other women were also affected. What woman had a normal relationship with her husband after being sealed to JS? Even the single women of marriageable age were not allowed to pursue normal relationships. They had to hide their status from Emma and others. That must have affected the health of many of the women.

That said, I think the evidence that JS had sex with many, if not all, of his wives is very strong. Given his position and what he was going through, he could not have had sex very often. Also, there were methods of birth control available back then. They may not have been as effective as the methods available today, but they existed. I think the lack of children is easily explainable by infrequent sex and the methods of birth control they had.

[Hagoth]

You don't have to have sex to be a sexual predator.

Two further observations:
1- Of several options available, only one sex act results in pregnancy.

2- I am not comfortable with the argument that Joseph wasn't being sealed to other men's wives to have sex with them, but to take them away from their husbands for ETERNITY. Really? Is that better? Apparently, in Mormon apologetics anything goes as long as there's no sex. Yeah, I know the essay says that Joseph was just providing a better option for women with deadbeat husbands. Apparently no one but Joseph is good enough, since Orson Hyde, the apostle who God sent to Jerusalem to dedicate the Holy Land for the gathering of Israel returned to discover that his wife Miranda was married to the prophet. Some people later claimed that Hyde gave permission, so why was he found with a gun contemplating suicide when he found out? And why did he seal himself to her after Joseph's death? Who wins? Sheesh what an ugly mess.

FAIR tries to downplay the accusation that Joseph sent men on missions so he could marry their wives by claiming that there are only two well documented cases of this happening. ONLY two? Isn't that enough? How many do you need?

[blazerb]

FAIR tries to downplay the accusation that Joseph sent men on missions so he could marry their wives by claiming that there are only two well documented cases of this happening. ONLY two? Isn't that enough? How many do you need?

It's similar to their attempt at downplaying the accusation that JS destroyed the reputations of women who turned him down and reported his behavior. They pointed out that there were many women who were propositioned by JS who turned him down who he did not besmirch. It turns out that these were the women who stayed quiet about JS's actions. They act like it's ok if he only hurt people who reported his behavior.

[AllieOop]

FAIR tries to downplay the accusation that Joseph sent men on missions so he could marry their wives by claiming that there are only two well documented cases of this happening. ONLY two? Isn't that enough? How many do you need?

I agree. This is the part of Joseph's polygamy that is so ugly and so offensive to most when they learn of these details. It wasn't enough that he went after Emma's young house girls who she loved as her own daughters, he had to approach his friend's wives behind their backs as well? Where is that commanded or covered in D&C 132?

Zina Huntington's story is also a huge head scratcher. She was married to an active member of the church who from all I've read was good and faithful.

What makes her story even more bizarre is that Brigham wanted to marry her too (polyandrous marriage) after Joseph died. Why? She was already sealed to Joseph for eternity and she already had a legal husband (Henry Jacobs). Zina had a daughter with Brigham too, but that daughter would be Joseph's for eternity, not Brigham's .

You're right....what a mess.

[Thoughtful]

FAIR tries to downplay the accusation that Joseph sent men on missions so he could marry their wives by claiming that there are only two well documented cases of this happening. ONLY two? Isn't that enough? How many do you need?

I agree. This is the part of Joseph's polygamy that is so ugly and so offensive to most when they learn of these details. It wasn't enough that he went after Emma's young house girls who she loved as her own daughters, he had to approach his friend's wives behind their backs as well? Where is that commanded or covered in D&C 132?

Zina Huntington's story is also a huge head scratcher. She was married to an active member of the church who from all I've read was good and faithful.

What makes her story even more bizarre is that Brigham wanted to marry her too (polyandrous marriage) after Joseph died. Why? She was already sealed to Joseph for eternity and she already had a legal husband (Henry Jacobs). Zina had a daughter with Brigham too, but that daughter would be Joseph's for eternity, not Brigham's .

You're right....what a mess.

Why? She probably was hot.

[Give It Time]

FAIR tries to downplay the accusation that Joseph sent men on missions so he could marry their wives by claiming that there are only two well documented cases of this happening. ONLY two? Isn't that enough? How many do you need?

I agree. This is the part of Joseph's polygamy that is so ugly and so offensive to most when they learn of these details. It wasn't enough that he went after Emma's young house girls who she loved as her own daughters, he had to approach his friend's wives behind their backs as well? Where is that commanded or covered in D&C 132?

Zina Huntington's story is also a huge head scratcher. She was married to an active member of the church who from all I've read was good and faithful.

What makes her story even more bizarre is that Brigham wanted to marry her too (polyandrous marriage) after Joseph died. Why? She was already sealed to Joseph for eternity and she already had a legal husband (Henry Jacobs). Zina had a daughter with Brigham too, but that daughter would be Joseph's for eternity, not Brigham's .

You're right....what a mess.

The bit in green reminds me of Woody Allen.

[Not Buying It]

You don't have to have sex to be a sexual predator.

Two further observations:
1- Of several options available, only one sex act results in pregnancy.

2- I am not comfortable with the argument that Joseph wasn't being sealed to other men's wives to have sex with them, but to take them away from their husbands for ETERNITY. Really? Is that better? Apparently, in Mormon apologetics anything goes as long as there's no sex. Yeah, I know the essay says that Joseph was just providing a better option for women with deadbeat husbands. Apparently no one but Joseph is good enough, since Orson Hyde, the apostle who God sent to Jerusalem to dedicate the Holy Land for the gathering of Israel returned to discover that his wife Miranda was married to the prophet. Some people later claimed that Hyde gave permission, so why was he found with a gun contemplating suicide when he found out? And why did he seal himself to her after Joseph's death? Who wins? Sheesh what an ugly mess.

FAIR tries to downplay the accusation that Joseph sent men on missions so he could marry their wives by claiming that there are only two well documented cases of this happening. ONLY two? Isn't that enough? How many do you need?

Many you had made excellent points. Particularly the ones above, and Hagoth's other point about how in the Temple Lot case the women either slept with Joseph Smith of the Church coerced them into lying that they slept with Joseph Smith, either one of which is pretty vile. It's a pretty disgusting business even if you ignore the sex, which the preponderance of evidence indicates occurred anyway. It is 100% certain the sex was part of Brigham Young's polygamy, so it's all moot anyway unless you ignore any prophet after Joseph.

As to the lack of progeny, why is everyone so quick to dismiss Sarah Pratt's accusations of abortion? We're not going to find any hard evidence of that at this point, and while she had a bias, she was a contemporary witness. Why is her Testimony on the subject so suspect? She claimed to have actually seen the instrument John C. Bennett used and heard him talk about it - why are we so quick to assume she was lying?

[SaidNobody]

As to the lack of progeny, why is everyone so quick to dismiss Sarah Pratt's accusations of abortion? We're not going to find any hard evidence of that at this point, and while she had a bias, she was a contemporary witness. Why is her Testimony on the subject so suspect? She claimed to have actually seen the instrument John C. Bennett used and heard him talk about it - why are we so quick to assume she was lying?

LOL
Someone is lying. There are volumes of testimony of people saying how wonderful JS is. Those same people were trusted and respected in the community.

So why assume it was them that lied?

My personal research discovered that most accounts of JS are very bias. Either in support or opposed. And sometimes, the truth is in between.

The accounts that are neutral are few. But they say that JS was a bright and generally respected boy. He started his "treasure hunting" as part of a fad of those days, but he was actually good at it. Other spiritualists of contemporary times were of great interest to him.

Judging by many of his recorded deeds, he read or was aware of Swendenborg, a visionary that died in 1772. There are still societies that gather in name of Swendenborg.

He got his seer stone almost last in his class. A girl brought one to class and he wanted one, but it took some time to get the right one for him.

Getting the gold plates was tricky. It wasn't as clean cut as the LDS version, and Emma went with him, or was near by. He had become aware of Moroni through his treasure hunting. He used a technique from Swendenborg to get it.

In general, though different, and controversial, some observing from the outside thought him sincere in his quest.

[Give It Time]

You don't have to have sex to be a sexual predator.

Two further observations:
1- Of several options available, only one sex act results in pregnancy.

2- I am not comfortable with the argument that Joseph wasn't being sealed to other men's wives to have sex with them, but to take them away from their husbands for ETERNITY. Really? Is that better? Apparently, in Mormon apologetics anything goes as long as there's no sex. Yeah, I know the essay says that Joseph was just providing a better option for women with deadbeat husbands. Apparently no one but Joseph is good enough, since Orson Hyde, the apostle who God sent to Jerusalem to dedicate the Holy Land for the gathering of Israel returned to discover that his wife Miranda was married to the prophet. Some people later claimed that Hyde gave permission, so why was he found with a gun contemplating suicide when he found out? And why did he seal himself to her after Joseph's death? Who wins? Sheesh what an ugly mess.

FAIR tries to downplay the accusation that Joseph sent men on missions so he could marry their wives by claiming that there are only two well documented cases of this happening. ONLY two? Isn't that enough? How many do you need?

Many you had made excellent points. Particularly the ones above, and Hagoth's other point about how in the Temple Lot case the women either slept with Joseph Smith of the Church coerced them into lying that they slept with Joseph Smith, either one of which is pretty vile. It's a pretty disgusting business even if you ignore the sex, which the preponderance of evidence indicates occurred anyway. It is 100% certain the sex was part of Brigham Young's polygamy, so it's all moot anyway unless you ignore any prophet after Joseph.

As to the lack of progeny, why is everyone so quick to dismiss Sarah Pratt's accusations of abortion? We're not going to find any hard evidence of that at this point, and while she had a bias, she was a contemporary witness. Why is her Testimony on the subject so suspect? She claimed to have actually seen the instrument John C. Bennett used and heard him talk about it - why are we so quick to assume she was lying?

I once read a scholarly article about how women aren't viewed as credible. Unfortunately, I can't find it, so I bring you Huff post:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-c ... 05532.html


I found this part interesting:

The words testimony, testify, testis, testicle, attest, intestate, testament and contest are related etymologically.

I knew about men in ancient Rome doing the crotch grabbing thing. One learns so many interesting things when learning how to produce an authentic show, but I didn't know why until I read that part. I checked it and she's right.

[Not Buying It]

LOL
Someone is lying. There are volumes of testimony of people saying how wonderful JS is. Those same people were trusted and respected in the community.

So why assume it was them that lied?

I'm not assuming they were lying. Most of them were conned by a charismatic fraud. The best con-men are the ones so slick and sincere sounding you don't know you're being conned. So it was with Joseph's followers. If you don't think it happens, just look at L. Ron Hubbard.

[moksha]

These polygamous unions were bonking on the sly. The sex would have been irregular and sporadic. Much more effort would have been put into the known contraceptive methods than in relationships where offspring would have been desired. The urge to "raise up righteous seed" would have been tempered by an even greater urge to not end up on trial.

Keep in mind the sworn affidavits of canoodling in the Temple lot case.