Dispelling some confusion about the Whitney Letter

[Nevo]

I've added this to the wiki article:

Hi WW,

I am flattered that you would consider incorporating one of my arguments into the FAIR wiki. However, you should know that I'm just throwing out ideas. I'm not an expert. If you do keep it, I would suggest a couple of modifications along the following lines:

"Joseph had been sealed to Sarah Ann three weeks before without Emma's knowledge. [8] Joseph may have wished to offer a sealing blessing to Newel and Elizabeth Whitney at this time. Given Joseph's indication to the Whitneys that he wished to "git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads," and the fact that Emma herself was not sealed until she consented to the doctrine of plural marriage nine months later, Joseph may have felt that Emma

[Wiki Wonka]

Very darling. I want one.

By the way, is that a coonskin hat she's sporting, or is she the vanguard of a new hair style.

Bear in mind, my eyes are going bad, and those 80x80 pixel avatars are getting dimmer by the day ...

Emma was about two months old when that photo was taken. She has what we call "amazing hair."

WW

[Wiki Wonka]

Hi WW,

I am flattered that you would consider incorporating one of my arguments into the FAIR wiki. However, you should know that I'm just throwing out ideas. I'm not an expert. If you do keep it, I would suggest a couple of modifications along the following lines:

"Joseph had been sealed to Sarah Ann three weeks before without Emma's knowledge. [8] Joseph may have wished to offer a sealing blessing to Newel and Elizabeth Whitney at this time. Given Joseph's indication to the Whitneys that he wished to "git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads," and the fact that Emma herself was not sealed until she consented to the doctrine of plural marriage nine months later, Joseph may have felt that Emma

[alter idem]

Michael Marquardt published the letter even earlier in his 1973 pamphlet "The Strange Marriages of Sarah Ann Whitney to Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet, Joseph C. Kingsbury, and Heber C. Kimball," obtaining photographs of the letter from the George Albert Smith Family Papers, Manuscript 36, Box 1, Early Smith Documents, 1731-1849, Folder 18, in the Special Collections, Western Americana, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (source). The original is in the LDS Church Archives.

Thanks for the information, It answered my question, but it also raised another--with red flags.

The pamphlet you cite was written in 1973, but was REVISED in 1982. I would like to know what changes or additions Marquardt made to the pamphlet.

When you mentioned that Marquardt was the first source for the letter, I remembered that Marquardt was one of Hofmann's early contacts, along with the Tanners.

The reason I want to know is I am highly suspicious of this Whitney letter. It sounds like some of Hofmann's forgeries. Now, if the letter was actually cited in the earlier version of his pamphlet, it makes it highly unlikely it could be a Hofmann forgery as Hofmann was only 18 at the time. But, you see the read flags go off if the letter was used in the revised version only--that was just the time that Hofmann forgeries made it into some reputable books. I recall at least one made it into Dean Jessee's book and I remember also that a couple were cited in Emma Smith--Mormon Enigma.

So, the next question for me is, Did Marquardt cite the letter in his FIRST pamphlet--or was it an addition in the revised version. I think it's a very good question, regardless of the explanations of where the letter now resides.

Considering that many of Hofmann's forgeries were never identified, we need to still be on the look out for them.

[cinepro]

It's my opinion that Joseph was simply planning an elaborate (if belated) surprise Birthday party for Emma. I have several times been surreptitiously contacted by friends of my wife (and conversely, contacted friends of my wife) for just such an occasion, and concealing such communications from the surprisee has always been of the utmost importance.

I can see why it's so easy to draw other conclusions (especially with our presentist attitudes that make us feel like it's a bad thing for a man to marry other women and meet with them and their parents all the while concealing it from their first wives, whereas most historians would argue such a thing was entirely normal and acceptable in previous cultures), but I think we need to consider the simpler solution before inventing motivations for which we have no evidence.

[Nevo]

The reason I want to know is I am highly suspicious of this Whitney letter. It sounds like some of Hofmann's forgeries. Now, if the letter was actually cited in the earlier version of his pamphlet, it makes it highly unlikely it could be a Hofmann forgery as Hofmann was only 18 at the time. But, you see the read flags go off if the letter was used in the revised version only--that was just the time that Hofmann forgeries made it into some reputable books. I recall at least one made it into Dean Jessee's book and I remember also that a couple were cited in Emma Smith--Mormon Enigma.

So, the next question for me is, Did Marquardt cite the letter in his FIRST pamphlet--or was it an addition in the revised version. I think it's a very good question, regardless of the explanations of where the letter now resides.

Considering that many of Hofmann's forgeries were never identified, we need to still be on the look out for them.

I find your suspicion that this letter is a Hofmann forgery bordering on irrational. Yes, photographs of the letter appeared in the 1973 edition of the pamphlet. And Marquardt got them from the George A. Smith Family Papers in the Marriott Library's Special Collections, which were acquired from Emily Smith Stewart between 1965 and 1969. The photographs of the letter, the original of which resides in the Joseph Smith Papers at the Church Archives, were obviously taken some time before that

[USU78]

Yes, photographs of the letter appeared in the 1973 edition of the pamphlet. And Marquardt got them from the George A. Smith Family Papers in the Marriott Library's Special Collections, which were acquired from Emily Smith Stewart between 1965 and 1969. The photographs of the letter, the original of which resides in the Joseph Smith Papers at the Church Archives, were obviously taken some time before that

[ERayR]

It's my opinion that Joseph was simply planning an elaborate (if belated) surprise Birthday party for Emma. I have several times been surreptitiously contacted by friends of my wife (and conversely, contacted friends of my wife) for just such an occasion, and concealing such communications from the surprisee has always been of the utmost importance.

I can see why it's so easy to draw other conclusions (especially with our presentist attitudes that make us feel like it's a bad thing for a man to marry other women and meet with them and their parents all the while concealing it from their first wives, whereas most historians would argue such a thing was entirely normal and acceptable in previous cultures), but I think we need to consider the simpler solution before inventing motivations for which we have no evidence.

On this I can agree.

[Nevo]

There's a problem when folks choose to accuse others of paranoia when they just ask for provenance of a smidgeon of evidence. Makes one think that advocacy overshadows good sense.

I do think it's paranoid to imagine that this letter might be a Hofmann forgery that the Church, and Dean Jessee of all people (!), somehow overlooked. The idea is ludicrous. If the provenance was at all questionable (e.g., the document had first surfaced in the early 80s through a Hofmann associate) it would not have been published in Jessee's 2002 revised edition of Personal Writings. I don't think anyone was more humiliated by being taken in by Hofmann's forgeries than Dean Jessee. Does anyone seriously think that Joseph Smith autographs aren't scrutinized to the Nth degree nowadays? It's not as if LDS scholars need reminding to be wary of Hofmann forgeries.

How did alter idem imagine such a scenario would play out? Hofmann plants photographs of his forgery in the Marriott Library Special Collections, which somehow goes unnoticed, and then also manages to somehow surreptitiously introduce the bogus "original" into the Joseph Smith Papers collection in the Church Archives? It's absurd.

[/rant]

[USU78]

I do think it's paranoid to imagine that this letter might be a Hofmann forgery that the Church, and Dean Jessee of all people (!), somehow overlooked. The idea is ludicrous. If the provenance was at all questionable (e.g., the document had first surfaced in the early 80s through a Hofmann associate) it would not have been published in Jessee's 2002 revised edition of Personal Writings. I don't think anyone was more humiliated by being taken in by Hofmann's forgeries than Dean Jessee. Does anyone seriously think that Joseph Smith autographs aren't scrutinized to the Nth degree nowadays? It's not as if LDS scholars need reminding to be wary of Hofmann forgeries.

How did alter idem imagine such a scenario would play out? Hofmann plants photographs of his forgery in the Marriott Library Special Collections, which somehow goes unnoticed, and then also manages to somehow surreptitiously introduce the bogus "original" into the Joseph Smith Papers collection in the Church Archives? It's absurd.

[/rant]

Man asks a question and Nevo jumps in his postum.

Sheesh.

[ERayR]

Man asks a question and Nevo jumps in his postum.

Sheesh.

If you don't want a foot in your postum either get a smaller cup or put it under a wooden box.

[Nevo]

Man asks a question and Nevo jumps in his postum.

Sheesh.

Yeah, I'm a big meanie

Worse still, I think alter idem might actually be a woman. I'm not even picking on my own sex.

[selek]

Yeah, I'm a big meanie

Worse still, I think alter idem might actually be a woman. I'm not even picking on my own sex.

AI is actually a lady (AND a UMW, IIRC), and jumping in her postum (you dirty dog, you) is grounds for a sexual harassment suit (or as Shades calls it, a "date").

Personally, I'd run, if I were you.

[wenglund]

I've added this to the wiki article:

Will you be adding to the wiki article the quotes from the History of the Church that I cited in the OP?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Wiki Wonka]

Will you be adding to the wiki article the quotes from the History of the Church that I cited in the OP?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, that's next. I need a bit more time to do those.

WW

[wenglund]

Yes, that's next. I need a bit more time to do those. WW

I am grateful. Dare I ask what that will cost me in chocolate? I have consumed all that I have.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[selek]

I am grateful. Dare I ask what that will cost me in chocolate? I have consumed all that I have.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hiya Wade...

....I'm making three large cookie sheet's worth of dark-and-white chocolate dipped strawberries tommorow.

Do you need me to float you a loan until you replenish your stocks?

[alter idem]

I do think it's paranoid to imagine that this letter might be a Hofmann forgery that the Church, and Dean Jessee of all people (!), somehow overlooked. The idea is ludicrous. If the provenance was at all questionable (e.g., the document had first surfaced in the early 80s through a Hofmann associate) it would not have been published in Jessee's 2002 revised edition of Personal Writings. I don't think anyone was more humiliated by being taken in by Hofmann's forgeries than Dean Jessee. Does anyone seriously think that Joseph Smith autographs aren't scrutinized to the Nth degree nowadays? It's not as if LDS scholars need reminding to be wary of Hofmann forgeries.

How did alter idem imagine such a scenario would play out? Hofmann plants photographs of his forgery in the Marriott Library Special Collections, which somehow goes unnoticed, and then also manages to somehow surreptitiously introduce the bogus "original" into the Joseph Smith Papers collection in the Church Archives? It's absurd.

[/rant]

"Irrational" "Paranoid" and "Absurd" to boot. Wow, all I did was ask a question, sorry.

Thanks for coming to my aid, USU78--you are a gentleman.

So that others on the board don't think I'm a raving lunatic, I will explain my reasoning. Whenever I've read that Whitney letter, it just rubs me wrong--it's fishy, sorry I guess it's just my paranoia and irrationality coming through.

In my defense, it is pretty clear there are more Hofmann forgeries which were never found--there was a poem by Emily ****inson which wasn't exposed till years later and we know that the way Hofmann operated, there are no doubt other forgeries which may be in the archives and in private hands which have not been exposed because Hofmann hid his involvement with them.

Only those papers which were believed to be possible forgeries were tested-Many in private hands were not tested, the owners had an investment in their being the real deal. As for possible forgeries in the church archives, I think they tested the ones they knew came from Hofmann, but most likely, there are still some forgeries that have not been exposed--however, I doubt the church wants to go on a hunt for them now--they want to forget the whole affair...so that means some forgeries are still out there--and they won't be exposed if no one dares to question their authenticity--which I'll sure think twice about next time.

I asked about this letter because I wanted to know it's provenance. In light of Hofmann, I think it's wise to know this and I don't think it's a crime to ask. And, when I saw that the pamphlet was revised in 1982, I assumed that meant Marquardt added or made changes to the original pamphlet. Once again, I don't think it's absurd to want to know if he had cited the letter in the original. You say he did and since I don't have access to the original I'll take your word for it.

As for how it got into the box, that would have been the next question--IF the letter had been part of the revisions, but since it was not, then the point is moot.

I hope in explaining, you'll forgive my paranoid, irrationality and wasting true scholars' time with my absurd questions.

[cinepro]

I've asked this question before, but I'll ask it again in the context of this thread:

If conclusive, authentic evidence were to come forth that Joseph's intent was to "spend the evening" with Sarah Whitney while her parents sat in the adjoining room (or waited in the woods), how would that change anyone's opinion or perception of the prophet? He was married to Sarah, so it was their privilege to enjoy such things (and in light of Jacob 2:30, it may have been a sin for them not to).

Is there any believing LDS in this forum who would think differently of him if that were the case? Is there anyone standing to say "The Joseph I know wouldn't do such a thing"?

[Nevo]

"Irrational" "Paranoid" and "Absurd" to boot. Wow, all I did was ask a question, sorry.

And all I did was answer it

As for possible forgeries in the church archives, I think they tested the ones they knew came from Hofmann, but most likely, there are still some forgeries that have not been exposed.

I don't think it is very likely at all that there are still Hofmann forgeries in the Church Archives.

You say he did and since I don't have access to the original I'll take your word for it.

If you still doubt it, you can e-mail Marquardt himself. Or Sandra Tanner. You shouldn't have much trouble finding contact information for either one. I haven't looked at the 1973 pamphlet myself but I deduced that the photos appeared there because Lawrence Foster mentioned them in his book Religion and Sexuality, which was published in 1981 (see p. 309n101). He probably also mentioned them in his 1976 dissertation, on which the book was based, but I don't have that handy right now.

[Nevo]

I've asked this question before, but I'll ask it again in the context of this thread:

If conclusive, authentic evidence were to come forth that Joseph's intent was to "spend the evening" with Sarah Whitney while her parents sat in the adjoining room (or waited in the woods), how would that change anyone's opinion or perception of the prophet? He was married to Sarah, so it was their privilege to enjoy such things (and in light of Jacob 2:30, it may have been a sin for them not to).

Such a thing would not be without precedent. Most recently married couples do, at some point, "spend the evening" together. An elderly Benjamin F. Johnson reported in 1903 that in May 1843 "the Prophet...at my house ocupied the Same Room & Bed with my Sister that the previous month he had ocupied with the Daughter of the Late Bishop Partridge as his wife and at this time he Sealed to me <my> First wife for Eternity" (Benjamin F. Johnson to George F. Gibbs, 1903, Benjamin Franklin Johnson Papers, 1852-1911, LDS Archives), so such things were not unheard of. And since Joseph at the time of his letter to the Whitneys was making plans to leave immediately for the Wisconsin pine country for an indefinite stay, it is possible that he wanted to see his new bride (and her parents) one last time before he left (on the Wisconsin plan, see Jessee, ed., PWJS, 554-55, and Newell and Avery, Mormon Enigma, 124).

But my hunch, from reading the letter, is that it was actually the parents whose company he craved on this occasion.

[AKS]

I read the wiki article and remain unconvinced. Even if we assume the letter's intent is not nefarious, we still have a clear example of a husbands secret dealings behind his wifes' back. If JS's intentions were so pure, why the need to hide from Emma? I don't buy the argument that he was afraid of Emma being followed; If he were truly concerned of that he would not have Emma return at all.

[USU78]

I read the wiki article and remain unconvinced. Even if we assume the letter's intent is not nefarious, we still have a clear example of a husbands secret dealings behind his wifes' back. If JS's intentions were so pure, why the need to hide from Emma? I don't buy the argument that he was afraid of Emma being followed; If he were truly concerned of that he would not have Emma return at all.

Maybe 'cause Emma was a moving target on the issue.

And JSJr, like any good married man, was scared to death of his wife.

[Wiki Wonka]

I am grateful. Dare I ask what that will cost me in chocolate? I have consumed all that I have.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I may have to require the indentured servitude of your first-born Oompa Loompa.

WW

[wenglund]

Hiya Wade...

....I'm making three large cookie sheet's worth of dark-and-white chocolate dipped strawberries tommorow.

Do you need me to float you a loan until you replenish your stocks?

What a wounderful jesture. But, aren't you supposed to be a meany?

Anyway, if you would cyber-ship the chololate and strawberries separately that would be great. I am a super-taster, and so my tongue can't handle the competingly sweet taste of stawberries and chololate together. For me, metaphorically it is like trying to listen to the beloved Beethoven and Brahams at the same time.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-