|
One misconception concerning Joseph's polyandry is that it was a practice represented in only one or two unusual marriages; however, fully one-third of Joseph's plural wives, eleven of them, were polyandrous.48 |
In regard to polyandry, Daynes wrote: "Perhaps nothing is less understood than Joseph Smith's sealings to women already married, because the evidence supports conflicting interpretations."49
McKeever and Johnson base their shallow glimpse of this subject on what at times could be described as the historical guesswork of Compton, which carries its own subsequent set of problems. The authors merely repeat one sentence from Compton's book and fail to mention or consider any of Compton's long list of theories for reasons behind polyandry which might provide some understanding for the reader.50
Regardless that Compton's dismissed theories remain long on speculation and short on fact, if McKeever and Johnson are going to base their writings on another author's research, then they ought to at least discuss the meaning of the original author's findings as defined by that author. Instead, McKeever and Johnson decide for themselves what miniscule item their readers will see of Compton's work and from there determine how their readers will interpret it. While Compton apparently sees no problem in his own self-described theorizing of uncertainties, this does not give license for McKeever and Johnson to launch their own undocumented branch of speculation. For example, McKeever and Johnson conclude from their miniscule sampling of Compton that Joseph committed adultery and wonder how Latter-day Saints can reconcile that in light of biblical prohibitions against it. Besides the fact that God at times commands men to do things that He at other times forbids them from doing,51 for Joseph, barriers to marriage were removed. Richard Van Wagoner, one of McKeever and Johnson's key sources, notes that Joseph "believed he had been given powers that transcended civil law. Claiming sole responsibility for binding and unbinding marriages on earth and in heaven, he did not consider it necessary to obtain civil marriage licenses or divorce decrees. Whenever he deemed it appropriate he could release a woman from her earthly marriage and seal her to himself or to another with no stigma of adultery."52 Similarly, Daynes noted that with marital barriers removed, there was no need to commit acts of adultery or fornication,53 thus, Joseph's plural marriages were "not adultery because a man could not commit adultery with wives who belonged to him."54 Ultimately, the generalized and speculative characterizations regarding these unique marriages find Joseph labeled by a term (polyandry) that does not apply in the fullest sense of definition and degree of intimate involvement implied by its use.
Looking beyond McKeever and Johnson's obsession with sexual triangulation, the logical and probable conclusion to be drawn from Joseph's practice is that God inspired and commanded him to be sealed to these women as both a means to test their faith and in certain cases establish eternal links.55 Glen M. Leonard described those few that entered into the relationships as having to "endure a more severe test of their faith." He recounted Joseph's request of Heber C. Kimball to take his wife as his own eternal companion. While Heber labored extensively with "soul-searching, fasting, and prayer,"56 he finally agreed to give her to Joseph. When Heber told Joseph of his decision, the prophet simply wept at his act of faith.57 It was at this point, which is key, that Joseph informed Kimball "that the request was an Abrahamic test of his willingness to submit his will to the Lord's and that the sacrifice of his wife would not be required."58 Joseph then sealed Heber and his wife as eternal mates. John Taylor passed this test with the same results. After Taylor informed the prophet that he could have his wife, Joseph said that he did not want her, rather he simply wanted to know where he stood.59 In a limited number of other instances, of which direct detail is lacking, some did allow their wives to be sealed to Joseph for eternity. "This ordinance," notes Leonard, "ensured the woman a marriage that would be valid in the resurrection no matter what became of her temporary, civil agreement. For some, it may have seemed the only way to gain that sacred promise."60
In 1854, Jedediah M. Grant, whom Compton also cites in one of his theories, provided some unique insight into why a few early Saints had to endure the test:
What would a man of God say, who felt aright, when Joseph asked him for his money? He would say, "Yes, and I wish I had more to help to build up the kingdom of God." Or if he came and said, "I want your wife?" "O yes," he would say, "here she is, there are plenty more."
...I would ask you if Jehovah has not in all ages tried His people by the power of Lucifer and his associates; and on the other hand, has He not tried them and proved them by His Prophets? Did the Lord actually want Abraham to kill Isaac? Did the Prophet Joseph want every man's wife he asked for? He did not, but in that thing was the grand thread of the Priesthood developed. The grand object in view was to try the people of God, to see what was in them. If such a man of God should come to me and say, "I want your gold and silver, or your wives," I should say, "Here they are, I wish I had more to give you, take all I have got." A man who has got the Spirit of God, and the light of eternity in him, has no trouble about such matters.
I am talking now of the present day. There was a time when we could be tried pretty severely upon these points, but I now could pick you out hundreds of men that cannot be tried in this way, but they will hand over every thing they possess. They understand the nature of such doctrines, and the object of such requirements. They know it is to prove the people, both men and women, and to develop what they will do. How can the Priesthood judge the people, if it does not prove them.61
Speculation aside, this form of pseudo-polyandry was about God trying His people and eternal relationships. Joseph's sealings to these women highlight principles of faith and eternal marriage. These are the aspects characterized in Joseph amidst the challenging issue of understanding polyandry and its underlying true purposes.
|
Some might argue that these relationships were strictly platonic. Compton disagrees, "Though it is possible that Joseph had some marriages in which there were no sexual relations, there is no explicit or convincing evidence for such a marriage (except, perhaps, in the cases of the older wives). And in a significant number of Joseph's marriages, there is evidence for sexual relations."62 |
While McKeever and Johnson readily accept the insinuation that all of Joseph's relationships were sexual, they fail to consider or even recognize the speculative (and what at times has been described as the self-serving) nature of Compton's exploration of polyandrous marriages. Sources do not show nor is there any reliable evidence that the way Joseph practiced polyandry included sexual or familial relations. Compton's only hint of possible intimacy with a married wife is a second-hand late account in 1915 wherein a daughter of one of Joseph's married wives related a story told to her thirty-three years earlier, that she was Joseph's child. This debatable piece of evidence, taken at face value, has been plausibly interpreted as meaning either that Joseph was the biological father or that he was the father in merely a spiritual sense. Either way, if the married wife, Sylvia Sessions, meant with certainty that Joseph was the biological father, she obviously would have to have been restricting her relationship to Joseph and not her excommunicated first husband,63 thus demonstrating a faulty application of the definition of polyandry.
Although Joseph fathered some children through marriages with wives that had been single, a parallel case cannot be made which supports that type of intimacy with wives that had been married to others. While Compton finds evidence for sexual relations in some marriages, he admits the possibility that other marriages had no sexual relations, which marriages those are, he does not specifically say.64 Compton's ultimate position is that if there is no good evidence to prove a non-intimate relationship, then the union must be sexual. The broad and often speculative nature of Compton's work can be shown in his treatment of Zina Huntington Jacobs' relationship with Joseph: "Nothing specific is known about sexuality in their marriage, though judging from Smith's other marriages, sexuality was probably included."65 Speculation based on "probably included" hardly amounts to fact, although certain critics (such as McKeever and Johnson) seem to think it does.
Compton's treatment of polyandry, as reflected in McKeever and Johnson's subsequent use, is summarized by Richard Lloyd Anderson as
inconsistent in the standards of judgment applied to polyandry. For woman after woman in this book, the following statement or its equivalent is made: "Absolutely nothing is known of this marriage after the ceremony"... Good history is characterized by careful interpretation of reliable documents, together with disclosing what cannot be determined. But Compton reverses these responsible methods in discussing sexuality, particularly in regard to the eight sealings to women with living husbands. He begins by probing the relatively small number of statements on physical relations in all marriages. These add up to first-, second-, and third-hand statements about some eight women, about a fourth of the Prophet's polygamous wives... This uneven mixture is then characterized as "a great deal of evidence that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with his wives"... That judgment is next intensified without further information...[refer to McKeever quote above]...Stripped of verbiage, this deduction moves in three steps: (1) About 28 percent of Joseph's marriages had full physical dimensions; (2) Evidence for the part may be taken for the whole; (3) Therefore, sexual relations characterized most of his marriages. However, the middle span of this bridge badly sags. In Sacred Loneliness does not have a factual basis for its conclusions regarding polyandry.66
Thats so backwards and you know it.