"There was an error performing your search."
;)

try it yourself:
http://www.lds.org/search?query=polyandry&lang=eng



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2012 11:06AM by Nick Humphrey.

This is just a generic error returned when no results are found.

The fact that no results are found, however, *IS* a problem. Liars.

the church isn't honest and upfront with its members about the topic of polyandry

todo: search the byu database of talks:
http://corpus.byu.edu/gc/

and see if any talks address it, then see if those same talks are found on lds.org



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2012 12:44PM by Nick Humphrey.

polyandry is mentioned, in what appears to be, only *one talk* between the years 1851-2010, by Heber J. Grant in 1902, and the context is Grant ridiculing the practice, calling it "Lamanism".

abstracts:
"
writer in defense of Christianity in the nation of Japan. This man, before I ever met him, wrote an article in one of the leading magazines of Japan in which he criticized the newspapers and the people of Japan, for opposing the " Mormon " religion. My interpreter interpreted this for me, and I afterwards read it to the man. He laughed, and said, " He has not interpreted my article. " He said, " The very first line says,' The people of Tokio welcome with loud Huzzahs Lamanism, which is polyandry, or a plurality of husbands,' and I did not say any such a thing. I said,' The enlightened people of Tokio.' The whole sarcasm is lost by your interpreter. It was not the common people, it was not the laboring people, but it was the enlightened people of Tokio that was crying out against the' Mormon' people. " I asked him if he would not translate the first page for me himself. (I had about 10 pages of it
"

"
It was not the common people, it was not the laboring people, but it was the enlightened people of Tokio that was crying out against the' Mormon' people. " I asked him if he would not translate the first page for me himself. (I had about 10 pages of it.) He said he was very busy, but he would translate the first page, as near as I can remember, the first page was as follows: " The enlightened people of Tokio have recently welcomed a sect from Thibet that preaches Lamanism, polyandry, a plurality of husbands, and scarce have they welcomed them with extraordinary enthusiasm and the huzzahs died away before they are condemning, with absolute ignorance, the' Mormon' religion! And these people who are condemning the' Mormons' and polygamy are believers in concubinage! Can there be under the sun a greater inconsistency than this? We might say something about the emperor and his concubines, but perhaps it would be considered disloyal, and therefore we will keep quiet. " This gives you a
"

source: http://corpus.byu.edu/gc/

Polyandry was a huge problem for me. In addition to the regular excuses why people leave the church (desire to sin, offended, etc), I would hear people say so and so was too intellectual, had problems with polygamy. NO. The problem isn't polygamy, it's polyandry. How was I an active member for 35 years and not once hear about polyandry? goD damn liars. The last priesthood meeting I attended was a lesson on "honesty" after I knew everything the church covers up. I couldn't take any more after that.

order66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> polyandry? goD damn liars. The last priesthood
> meeting I attended was a lesson on "honesty" after
> I knew everything the church covers up.

exactly =) i made a motivator art with the heading "HONESTY" above a screenshot of these search results =)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2012 12:47PM by Nick Humphrey.

than for a man to have multiple wives?
I sense some sexism here...

I don't think it's sexism. Poster is just saying that he was at least told about polygamy, but not a word about polyandry, which poster feels was massively dishonest.

I don't think it is worse at all.

However the big difference is that Mormons are brainwashed to believe that polygamy is OK - they are programmed to accept it as part of God's will.

However, the polyandry is hidden and covered up. So exposing the lie is what makes it the problem.

Also, the despicable actions of Joseph using his authority to send men of on missions and then putting the moves on their wives is pretty emotionally disturbing.

Polygamy includes both polygyny and polyandry.

The Morgdom NEVER uses the word "polyandry"..... don't know why. They ALWAYS use the less correct word "polygamy". If you search lds.org for "polygamy", you will find a bunch of references.

They are not guilty of lying, they are guilty of using the less correct word usage.

On the other hand, the typical non-mormon always connects polygamy with the mormons, but very few non-mormons have ever heard the word polyandry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
"
Polygamy (from πολύς γάμος polys gamos, translated literally in Late Greek as "often married")[1] is a marriage which includes more than two partners.[1] When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, the relationship is called polygyny, and there is no marriage bond between the wives; and when a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called polyandry, and there is no marriage bond between the husbands. If a marriage includes multiple husbands and wives, it can be called group marriage
"

i.e. "polygamy" is the generic term for plural marriage
"polygny" is what most people know about (just not the term)
"polyandry" is what most mormons don't know about



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2012 01:03PM by Nick Humphrey.

It was commonly practiced in Tibet, and was sort of a natural population control. A woman with two husbands was not uncommon.

The problem for me was the other husbands not knowing about it.

JS lied to Emma about his miscellaneous wives, and that was low of him. But the new wives must have certainly known about Emma.

Sending guys off on missions, then taking their wives while they were gone was taking playing dirty to a whole new level.

They are not just using the wrong word. I learned about polygamous wives on numerous occasions, but never once that some of those polygamous wives were concurrently married to other men. That is deception, not just using the wrong word.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2012 01:07PM by order66.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Sealing is a mandatory ordinance for exaltation. I can see marrying multiple people so that everyone can be exalted (regardless of 1 man to many women or 1 women to many men), but marrying multiple people that are already married serves no point other than having more sex partners.

It was technically Joseph Smith stealing other men's wives.
It was not about women having multiple husbands. In polyandry, a woman will have two husbands, but those two husbands will share only one wife.
I think your outrage is over Joseph Smith stealing another man's woman. Which is sexist. If the woman actually wanted to be married to both of them and have relationships with both of them, what's the big deal?

I personally have no problem with it. I'm all for legalizing polygamy/polyandry. Consenting adults should be able to do what they want to do, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the mormon church. The problem is that it happened and they hide it.

out of the water.

I also doubt any of the women really "wanted" it.

We know about Joseph's total mindf*ck of Heber C. Kimball regarding his wife Vilate prior to asking Heber to hand over his teenage daughter, Helen Mar. Joseph would have no problem running any psychological mindgame on any young and/or impressionable girl or woman to get exactly what he wanted. I wouldn't doubt that Joe kind of enjoyed bending their will. Just another level of conquest for the man who communed with Jehovah. Praise to the man!


About Joe and The Kimballs:

The following is from a site that shall not be named because it's a banned word/phrase. If you really want to look it up, think Mormon + window covering.

Stanley B. Kimball, Heber's great-great-grandson, wrote the following in “Biography of Heber C. Kimball, “Heber C. Kimball, Mormon Patriarch and Pioneer” (p. 93):

“During the summer of 1841, shortly after Heber's return from England, he was introduced to the doctrine of plural marriage directly through a startling test-a sacrifice which shook his very being and challenged his faith to the ultimate. He had already sacrificed homes, possessions, friends, relatives, all worldly rewards, peace, and tranquility for the Restoration. Nothing was left to place on the altar save his life, his children, and his wife. Joseph demanded for himself what to Heber was the unthinkable, his Vilate. Totally crushed spiritually and emotionally, Heber touched neither food nor water for three days and three nights and continually sought confirmation and comfort from God.” Finally, after “some kind of assurance,” Heber took Vilate to the upper room of Joseph's store on Water Street [to become Smith’s latest plural wife].”

Curiously, after all the psychological and emotional drama, Joseph informed Heber and Vilate at the last minute that, well, he “had never intended to take Vilate. It was all a test.” (quoting Stanley B. Kimball; same book and page no.).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2012 07:07AM by Surrender Dorothy.

Polyandry is incompatible with Mormon theology. It was a sign to me that the whole polygamy nonsense was just adultery.

hey, Donny & Marie don't even know about polyandry.
Somebody oughta email them.

They were on the Joy Behar Show last year and at 7:00 the conversation begins. They don't kow what it means.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JobQRytGvp8

They also don't know the details about polygamy. They say they don't believe in polygamy, but apparently nobody gave them the memo that it's part of their eternal rituals which was only done away with in **this life** after the court said they couldn't vote if they continued.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2012 01:12PM by dec.

Polyandry? Most Mormons couldn't even find an LDS source for polygamy, especially for any discussion of it happening before it was announced in 1852 or in conjunction with JS.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/26/2012 01:15PM by Heresy.

... and I thought polyandry is when you don't separate the laundry before you wash it. I do that when I'm sure my wife won't be home before I'm finished with the washer AND drier.

whether or not joseph smith had sexual relations with the women who were already married to other men or were they just spiritual wives meant for the next life. Some women were even sealed to smith after he died.

You seriously think he lied and covered it up and got arrested and killed over some simple sealings? And he was the only one in Nauvoo who didn'thave sex wiith his polygamous wives?

Two responses:

1) To me that doesn't really matter. What about the next life? Does Joseph Smith get to steal other men's wives for eternity just because he is higher in authority? That concept is more disturbing than Joseph having sex with other women in this life.

2) The evidence is there in abundance. Court affidavits, journals, etc. Just because they didn't live in an age where they talked as explicitly as we do today doesn't make the evidence anything less than overwhelming. Only extreme apologetic mind bending even allows one to conceive of anything else.

if you google:
joseph smith wives part 1 flickr nickleus

you'll find my documentation from familysearch showing that joseph smith has been sealed to over 200 women.

So, is it true that Emma asked Joe if she could have William Law as HER plural husband, as I read somewhere (and cannot remember where in my almost-nonstop-manic rush of reading when I first started the journey out)? And that he was willing, if she would back off "nagging him about his wives," to consider or to do it (don't remember which) as he wanted Law's wife at one time, but then the whole thing turned into a plot to kill Law and take his wife when they refused?

God, that read like a soap opera plot.

Oh so you were looking for discussion about polyandry and MORmONISM. well the ex mormon foundation provided some of the best discussion on this ever, by James WHitefield.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36B-c58_WPo