NOM

Posted: **Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:28 pm**

All the talk of polygamy and polyandry. Books written about the wives and concubines of joseph smith.

What about some research and books written about the husbands of the wives of joseph smith? Seriously, these guys are forgotten to.

Maybe its because they where idiots for letting it happen. But their stories should be told also.

Posted: **Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:31 pm**

There are some great accounts about the hubby's. The best ones are the ones that he tried to get. You know like Wilson Law. He has a good story. Lol

Posted: **Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:15 am**

Bloodhound98 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:31 pm You know like Wilson Law. He has a good story.

Had William and Jane been agreeable to the proposed swapping arrangement, there might have been some future movie called "Joe and Emma and Will and Jane". Change the location from Nauvoo to Novato and set it in 1980 to give it a true California free-wheeling feel with some randy and prophetic Saints.

Posted: **Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:34 am**

Why do I always call him Wilson???? Lol I was explaining some parts of that story to my dad and he was so confused because he had never heard of Wilson Law. Lol

Posted: **Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:21 am**

moksha wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:15 am
Bloodhound98 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:31 pm You know like Wilson Law. He has a good story.
Had William and Jane been agreeable to the proposed swapping arrangement, there might have been some future movie called "Joe and Emma and Will and Jane". Change the location from Nauvoo to Novato and set it in 1980 to give it a true California free-wheeling feel with some randy and prophetic Saints.

That story about William and Jane law was crazy to me. Growing up I always thought he was the bad guy in the whole mess.

Now he is the good guy exposing the crazy going on. Seriously messed up shenanigans!

Posted: **Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:00 am**

The situation that really distresses me is Zina Huntington and Henry Jacobs. This is one of the clearest cases of polyandry and it happened with both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. So much of the apologetic explanation of polyandry centers on firmly asserting the "eternity only" nature of the polyandrous marriages. A lot of this is conjecture and apologists make the distressing assumption that sex cannot simply be assumed in these marriages. Even if we grant that extraordinary explanation with Joseph Smith, no such explanation works for Brigham Young.

Zina Diantha Huntington Smith Young was the third General President of the Relief Society so her story cannot be forgotten. Zina's defense of plural marriage is also used by apologists to dismiss concerns about polygamy. Through all of the layers of explanation and apologia, Henry Jacobs is relegated to be the unfortunate first husband who never got over the loss of his wife and children. His legacy is tarnished and sacrificed to the defensive narrative of polygamy today.

Posted: **Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:24 am**

Henry Jacobs was, as far as I recall, faithful to the church to the end, despite his treatment from Brigham and Joseph. And yet his descendants are sealed to (correct me if I'm wrong) Joseph Smith. Would those descendants have a right to say, "Hey LDS church, I want to be sealed to me dad (or grandpa, or Great Grandpa) Henry?

Posted: **Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:27 am**

Corsair wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:00 am The situation that really distresses me is Zina Huntington and Henry Jacobs. This is one of the clearest cases of polyandry and it happened with both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. So much of the apologetic explanation of polyandry centers on firmly asserting the "eternity only" nature of the polyandrous marriages. A lot of this is conjecture and apologists make the distressing assumption that sex cannot simply be assumed in these marriages. Even if we grant that extraordinary explanation with Joseph Smith, no such explanation works for Brigham Young.

Zina Diantha Huntington Smith Young was the third General President of the Relief Society so her story cannot be forgotten. Zina's defense of plural marriage is also used by apologists to dismiss concerns about polygamy. Through all of the layers of explanation and apologia, Henry Jacobs is relegated to be the unfortunate first husband who never got over the loss of his wife and children. His legacy is tarnished and sacrificed to the defensive narrative of polygamy today.

So true - one might try and argue that Joseph never had physical relations with Zina, but it is clear and unambiguous that Brigham Young stole Zina from Henry, had sex with her, and had children by her. I've seen apologists claim Henry was neglectful to try and justify it - so not only did he get his wife stolen, he gets slandered by apologists also. Only in the topsy turvey world of Mormon apologetic ethics would the guy whose was wife stolen by not one but two prophets be the bad guy.

Posted: **Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:52 am**

The Nauvoo Polygamy essay tries to suggest that by marrying these women Joseph was somehow heroically rescuing them from being shackled to unworthy, substandard husbands, which is why Sarah Pratt and Miranda Hyde are such great examples. Joseph started making proposals to Sarah (which she rejected) while her husband Orson was on a mission. Orson was one of the founding apostles and was fully devoted to the church. Did Sarah really need to be rescued by Joseph Smith because her husband wasn’t a worthy priesthood holder?

Then Joseph married Miranda Hyde while her husband Orson Hyde, also an apostle, was in Jerusalem where he had been sent as the Lord’s emissary to consecrate Palestine for the gathering of Israel. Not a worthy priesthood holder?

Try to imagine Thomas Monson secretly marrying Kathlene Eyring to save her from Henry's spiritual inadequacies.

Posted: **Thu Mar 23, 2017 1:20 pm**

I have a hard time understanding what incentive these women would have had for marrying joseph for eternity only.

Lets just say it was true, the husbands of these women were not worthy priesthood holders, so they go and marry joseph, for eternity only, but never have any kind of relationship with him. They continue to live with, and I assume love their husbands until they die, but come judgement time it's, hasta la vista sucker, Joseph is taking me to heaven, and you aint coming! Maybe If I can pry myself away from eternal bliss long enough, I might come visit you in one of those lower kingdoms sometime, but eh probably not.

is that not a huge punch in the gut or what? were they really that selfish?

Posted: **Thu Mar 23, 2017 1:39 pm**

Bloodhound98 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:34 am Why do I always call him Wilson???? Lol I was explaining some parts of that story to my dad and he was so confused because he had never heard of Wilson Law. Lol

Ever elusive...

[/THREADJACK]

Posted: **Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:18 pm**

Corsair wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:00 am The situation that really distresses me is Zina Huntington and Henry Jacobs. This is one of the clearest cases of polyandry and it happened with both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. So much of the apologetic explanation of polyandry centers on firmly asserting the "eternity only" nature of the polyandrous marriages. A lot of this is conjecture and apologists make the distressing assumption that sex cannot simply be assumed in these marriages. Even if we grant that extraordinary explanation with Joseph Smith, no such explanation works for Brigham Young.

Zina is my "go to" example when discussing my issues with polygamy with TBMs. It tears down every apologist explanation. Every time I bring up Zina the discussion goes to "well, we just don't understand why blah blah blah...."

Posted: **Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:25 pm**

Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:52 amThe Nauvoo Polygamy essay tries to suggest that by marrying these women Joseph was somehow heroically rescuing them from being shackled to unworthy, substandard husbands, which is why Sarah Pratt and Miranda Hyde are such great examples.

This is cruel to these men to assume that they are substandard and therefore deserve to be married to a manlier (more worthy priesthood holder) man. It makes me angry to see these men disrespected like this.

Posted: **Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:23 am**

GoodBoy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:25 pm This is cruel to these men to assume that they are substandard and therefore deserve to be married to a manlier (more worthy priesthood holder) man.

Oh yeah? Maybe these women just preferred men with bigger priesthood keys for that full gospel feel.

Posted: **Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:15 am**

deacon blues wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:24 am Henry Jacobs was, as far as I recall, faithful to the church to the end, despite his treatment from Brigham and Joseph. And yet his descendants are sealed to (correct me if I'm wrong) Joseph Smith. Would those descendants have a right to say, "Hey LDS church, I want to be sealed to my dad (or grandpa, or Great Grandpa) Henry?

Posted: **Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:13 pm**

GoodBoy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:25 pm
Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:52 amThe Nauvoo Polygamy essay tries to suggest that by marrying these women Joseph was somehow heroically rescuing them from being shackled to unworthy, substandard husbands, which is why Sarah Pratt and Miranda Hyde are such great examples.
This is cruel to these men to assume that they are substandard and therefore deserve to be married to a manlier (more worthy priesthood holder) man. It makes me angry to see these men disrespected like this.

This is what I was told in an RS lesson on polygamy last month. And last week I was told in RS that men have worthiness issues and women don't. At least they're consistent.

I agree, it's terrible.

Posted: **Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:58 pm**

Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:52 am The Nauvoo Polygamy essay tries to suggest that by marrying these women Joseph was somehow heroically rescuing them from being shackled to unworthy, substandard husbands, which is why Sarah Pratt and Miranda Hyde are such great examples. Joseph started making proposals to Sarah (which she rejected) while her husband Orson was on a mission. Orson was one of the founding apostles and was fully devoted to the church. Did Sarah really need to be rescued by Joseph Smith because her husband wasn’t a worthy priesthood holder?

Then Joseph married Miranda Hyde while her husband Orson Hyde, also an apostle, was in Jerusalem where he had been sent as the Lord’s emissary to consecrate Palestine for the gathering of Israel. Not a worthy priesthood holder?

Try to imagine Thomas Monson secretly marrying Kathlene Eyring to save her from Henry's spiritual inadequacies.

Any person lacking in spiritual acumen would only be able see the carnal adVantages and disgust of stealing a man's bride while he's away to add to his nubile collection. That is not what the Lord had in mind. He was testing the faithfulness of Orson Pratt and Orson Hyde. Also, vagina wastage. It is painful to the Lord to see an unused vagina wasting while a spiritual giant can step in and lend a hand or any other body part.

Posted: **Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:09 pm**

This stuff is right out of the anthropology book. More powerful men get more women, and the women are the visible proof that they are more powerful than other men. It's about control, status and publicly putting other men in their place. What is power? The ability to make other people do what you want.

From as far back as the earliest civilizations it always comes down to a few things: making claims of being closer to deity than anyone else and being validated by god(s), having access to more women, getting people to build temples for you, getting people to support you financially, greater access to wealth/resources/elite goods/human labor.

It's the same old story over and over again, just dressed up differently.

Posted: **Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:27 pm**

moksha wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:23 am
GoodBoy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:25 pm This is cruel to these men to assume that they are substandard and therefore deserve to be married to a manlier (more worthy priesthood holder) man.
Oh yeah? Maybe these women just preferred men with bigger priesthood keys for that full gospel feel.

Scientists Hiram Masters and Moroni Johnson proved this fuller gospel feel from bigger priesthood keys, for Mormon women, was just a myth.

Posted: **Sun Mar 26, 2017 12:06 pm**

moksha wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2017 4:27 pm
moksha wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2017 1:23 am
GoodBoy wrote: ↑Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:25 pm This is cruel to these men to assume that they are substandard and therefore deserve to be married to a manlier (more worthy priesthood holder) man.
Oh yeah? Maybe these women just preferred men with bigger priesthood keys for that full gospel feel.
Scientists Hiram Masters and Moroni Johnson proved this fuller gospel feel from bigger priesthood keys, for Mormon women, was just a myth.

You're right. It's not the size of the priesthood antenna, it's the power I'm it.

NOM

The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

Re: The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

Re: The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

Re: The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

Re: The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

Re: The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

Re: The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

Re: The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

Re: The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

Re: The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

Re: The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

Re: The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

Re: The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

Re: The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

Re: The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

Re: The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

Re: The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

Re: The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

Re: The husbands of joseph smiths wives.

Re: The husbands of joseph smiths wives.