Grant Palmer And The Laws

[cinepro]

As your link points out, there are plenty of competent historians who do support the charges that Cowdery practiced polygamy without authorization.

Concerning the possibility of Cowdery practicing plural marriage, Todd Compton summarized, “Evidence of a plural marriage for Cowdery in Kirtland is not persuasive.”[35] A review of contemporary documents regarding Oliver’s personal views and behavior is less than conclusive regarding any possible involvement in or acceptance of plural marriage at any time. In short, to assert that Oliver Cowdery ever accepted or practiced polygamy is a conclusion that goes beyond available evidence.

What, exactly, does the link point out?

[rongo]

The point of the Hales article you linked to is to argue against the traditional "party line" on the moral aspects of Cowdery's excommunication, so in that respect Hales supports what you are saying. Hales does admit (as he has to) that "Historians have different views regarding the possibility that Oliver Cowdery was ever involved in unauthorized plural marriage during the period of his close association with Joseph Smith" [Hales then quotes Danel Bachman and Glen Leonard, two solid LDS historians, as examples of those who support the treatment of various 19th Century Brethren).

My only point is that Brian Hales' view is not the definitive word on this. Other equally or more prominent and respected LDS historians disagree with him (as he admits) and argue in favor of what Brigham Young, George Q. Cannon, et. al. claimed in this matter.

[Scott Lloyd]

The point of the Hales article you linked to is to argue against the traditional "party line" on the moral aspects of Cowdery's excommunication, so in that respect Hales supports what you are saying. Hales does admit (as he has to) that "Historians have different views regarding the possibility that Oliver Cowdery was ever involved in unauthorized plural marriage during the period of his close association with Joseph Smith" [Hales then quotes Danel Bachman and Glen Leonard, two solid LDS historians, as examples of those who support the treatment of various 19th Century Brethren).

My only point is that Brian Hales' view is not the definitive word on this. Other equally or more prominent and respected LDS historians disagree with him (as he admits) and argue in favor of what Brigham Young, George Q. Cannon, et. al. claimed in this matter.

Do Bachman and Leonard really argue in favor of it, or do they merely assert it as part of the historical record? My impression is that Hales's article was written later and presented new research to challenge the assumption by authors such as Bachman and Leonard. Have either of them come back with any sort of rebuttal?

[rongo]

Well, academics consists of argument and controversy (even among friends and similarly-disposed people). I think that Bachman and Leonard were much more of the "moral allegations against Cowdery were largely with merit" camp, while Hales clearly disputed that. That was a major contribution on the part of Hales on this question. But, nothing is settled "in stone," and people can, and do, choose sides. I don't think there are any "lame" arguments here; I think it's largely a matter of preference.

I don't know whether they responded to Hales or not.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, academics consists of argument and controversy (even among friends and similarly-disposed people). I think that Bachman and Leonard were much more of the "moral allegations against Cowdery were largely with merit" camp, while Hales clearly disputed that. That was a major contribution on the part of Hales on this question. But, nothing is settled "in stone," and people can, and do, choose sides. I don't think there are any "lame" arguments here; I think it's largely a matter of preference.

I don't know whether they responded to Hales or not.

Thanks.

I'm fairly well acquainted with Leonard and see him from time to time. If I get a chance, I might ask him about it.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[William Schryver]

My first thought is, why is the John Whitmer Historical Association publishing this? Are they so hard up for submissions that they're now reduced to publishing amateur postings from an anti-Mormon website? Is Steve Benson's online oevre next?

As is painfully clear to anyone who has ever read Grant Palmer's work--or, worse, heard him speak--Palmer is no scholar. Several of Palmer's primary sources are highly problematic but he shows no awareness of this. He doesn't think to interrogate the motives of any of his informants. If they're critical of Joseph Smith, that's good enough for him.

Palmer also isn't above ignoring evidence that doesn't fit his thesis. For example, Palmer writes:

William wrote in his diary on May 13, 1844, that, "He [smith] had lately endeavored to seduce my wife, and had found her a virtuous woman." Alexander Neibaur, a close friend of Joseph Smith, recorded: "When Mr[.] Law came home [one evening,] he Inquired who had been in his Absence. she said no one but Br Joseph. he then demanded what had pass[ed.] Mrs[.] L[aw] then told [him] that Joseph wanted her to be Married to him."

Palmer neglects to mention that Neibaur's diary entry actually claims that it was Jane Law who propositioned Joseph, and that Jane was lying to her husband when she said it was the other way around.

"Mr Wm Law–wisht to be Married to his Wife for Eternity Mr [Joseph] Smith said would Inquire of the Lord, Answered no because Law was a Adultereous person. Mrs Law wandet to know why she could not be Married to Mr Law Mr S said would not wound her feeling by telling her, some days after Mr Smith going toward his Office Mrs Law stood in the door beckoned to him more the once did not Know wheter she bekoned to him went across to Inquire yes please to walk in no one but herself in the house. she drawing her Arms around him if you wont seal me to my husband Seal myself unto you. he Said stand away & pushing her Gently aside giving her a denial & going out. when Mr Law came home he Inquired who had been in his Absence. she said no one but Br Joseph, he then demanded what had pass[ed] Mrs L then told Joseph wandet her to be Married to him" (Alexander Neibaur Journal, 24 May 1844, Church Archives, in Lyndon W. Cook, “William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter,” BYU Studies 22:1 [Fall 1982], 65n82).

The primary sources are contradictory and admittedly difficult to interpret, but Palmer never attempts a careful, even-handed appraisal. His cuts the Gordian knot by giving the benefit of the doubt to Joseph's adversaries and assuming the worst about the Prophet. Joseph's opponents said he tried to have Gov. Boggs killed, therefore that establishes to Palmer's satisfaction that "Joseph Smith ordered the death of his enemies." Most historians would need a little more to go on before flatly stating this as fact.

Palmer maintains that William Law is a credible, trustworthy source because he "had the reputation of being a 'good man' during his entire life." But one need only read Law's post-1844 letters and interviews to see how embittered, angry, and contemptuous he was toward Joseph Smith and Mormonism to the end of his life. And Law's tales of Joseph's depravity became more numerous and detailed as he got older. Needless to say, no responsible historian would assume--as Palmer does--that Law's 1887 reminiscences (recorded at the height of national anti-Mormon sentiment by a crusading anti-Mormon journalist) paint a true picture of Nauvoo in the 1840s. But Palmer is not a responsible historian and his article is not legitimate scholarship. Shame on JWHA for publishing this dreck. I am glad I am not a dues-paying member.

I can't improve upon this, so I merely quote and endorse it.

Those of you who are relative newcomers to the arena of online LDS discussions may not be familiar with "Nevo," but he is one of the "veteran voices" in the phenomenon that is the Bloggernacle, of which these message boards are a distinctly unique component. Anyway, it has been my experience that, if he takes the time to say something, you would do well to listen.

[canard78]

I can't improve upon this, so I merely quote and endorse it.

Those of you who are relative newcomers to the arena of online LDS discussions may not be familiar with "Nevo," but he is one of the "veteran voices" in the phenomenon that is the Bloggernacle, of which these message boards are a distinctly unique component. Anyway, it has been my experience that, if he takes the time to say something, you would do well to listen.

Indeed. The Neibaur misquote and then 'full quote' as a fantastic example of how critics can take selective information to deceive.

Does Nevo have a blog?