had a conversation about polyandry and the topics. church lies

[Rob4Hope]

I have someone I just mentioned Polyandry to who flat out denied it ever existed, that JS ever did it, and that its totally false. I know the "essays" talk about polygamy, but I wondered if they mentioned polyandry. So I looked, and they quote Hale's crap, where he intentionally misleads IMHO.

No reference in the essay at all, and Hales work only defines the term, but says there was no such thing.

He is a liar. He says in other areas that there is evidence that Sylvia Sessions had JS child...which has been disproved through DNA now, and what you got is a credible "faithful" witness that Sylvia was having sex with BOTH MEN!

I don't fault her. I fault the church and JS for telling lies.

HOW FRUSTRATING!!!

[Hagoth]

Yup, this is one of the most pathetic attempts of all of the essays to put lipstick on the pig. There is so much thrashing for answers that they throw out as many possibilities as they can think of in hopes that you'll fall for one of them. Here are some exerpts from the polyandry section of the essay (my comments in blue:

...though several women said they were for eternity alone, Other women left no records, making it unknown whether their sealings were for time (e.g. sex) and eternity or were for eternity alone.

There are several possible explanations for this practice...

These sealings may have...

complaints about these sealings with Joseph Smith are virtually absent from the documentary record. (hint: virtually absent means that only some of the husbands complained)

These sealings may also be explained by Joseph’s reluctance to enter plural marriage because of the sorrow it would bring to his wife Emma.

Another possibility is that...

Joseph Smith would give them blessings they might not otherwise receive in the next life.

So where is the inspiration that's supposed to dispel the half-truths of the adversary? All I see is a bundle of half-truths.

And of course it entirely fails to address why it is considered noble to secretly and illegally take another man's wife for freakin' eternity. The essay is all about trying to reassure you that Joseph didn't have sex (code word "married for time") with all of these women. And then they have the audacity to tell you in the conclusion not to worry your pretty little head about it because God's gonna sort it all out in the end anyway. Ugh.

Here's my annotated version of this essay that calls BS on all of the specifics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vd_ ... F2Fxc/edit#

[wtfluff]

The essay does mention that Joseph "married" other men's wives, though it does not mention "polyandry" as the definition of this practice.

The fourth paragraph after the heading, Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage states:

Following his marriage to Louisa Beaman and before he married other single women, Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married. Neither these women nor Joseph explained much about these sealings, though several women said they were for eternity alone. Other women left no records, making it unknown whether their sealings were for time and eternity or were for eternity alone.

And it goes on to give the lame excuses that Hagoth mentions...