Salon.com On Js And Polygamy

[mercyngrace]

This showed up in my FB feed this morning. Anyone know of a response to American Crucifixion by Alex Beam ?

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/20/blood_vows_joseph_smith_mormonism_and_the_invention_of_american_polygamy/

 

 

 

edit: I confused the title of the article with the name of the book. Also to add a few more links to reviews.

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304512504579493383379917034

 

http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-alex-beam-20140420,0,4608248.story

Edited April 23, 2014 by mercyngrace

[Kevin Christensen]

This showed up in my FB feed this morning. Anyone know of a response to American Crucifixion by Alex Beam ?

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/20/blood_vows_joseph_smith_mormonism_and_the_invention_of_american_polygamy/

 

 

 

edit: I confused the title of the article with the name of the book. Also to add a few more links to reviews.

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304512504579493383379917034

 

http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-alex-beam-20140420,0,4608248.story

Try Meg Stout at the Millenial Star.

http://www.millennialstar.org/american-crucifixion-the-murder-of-joseph-smith-and-the-fate-of-the-mormon-church/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheMillennialStar+%28Millennial+Star%29

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Calm]

Just dont lose the critical eye with her own pet theory which is very problematic, IMO.

[juliann]

Try Meg Stout at the Millenial Star.

http://www.millennialstar.org/american-crucifixion-the-murder-of-joseph-smith-and-the-fate-of-the-mormon-church/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheMillennialStar+%28Millennial+Star%29

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I'd be very cautious recommending her. She is currently putting forth a very strange and unsupportable theory about JS's polygamy. Her methodology involves changing out pronouns in Eliza's poems, for example.  She creates her own evidence for Eliza being impregnated by Bennett by claiming that "face to face/ side to side" in her poem is a reference to sex. These are, of course, idioms that have a long history of usage. They do not have sexual overtones.  

[David T]

Brian Hales' 3-volume Joseph Smith's Polygamy is THE source. Every known document even hinting at the context of JS' polygamy has been reproduced and examined in its context.

 

Here's is Hales' website, with lots of the data, but not nearly  everything that is included in the books.

[cinepro]

This showed up in my FB feed this morning. Anyone know of a response to American Crucifixion by Alex Beam ?

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/20/blood_vows_joseph_smith_mormonism_and_the_invention_of_american_polygamy/

 

 

 

edit: I confused the title of the article with the name of the book. Also to add a few more links to reviews.

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304512504579493383379917034

 

http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-alex-beam-20140420,0,4608248.story

 

Was there something specific that you felt needed a "response"?

[juliann]

Brian Hales' 3-volume Joseph Smith's Polygamy is THE source. Every known document even hinting at the context of JS' polygamy has been reproduced and examined in its context.

 

Here's is Hales' website, with lots of the data, but not nearly  everything that is included in the books.

 

This is what Hales' had to say about Stout's wild speculating, I think this is important because she is attacking Eliza Snow's character based on rumor and gossip.   She published an excerpt from what seems to be his private email, found in the comment section [emphasis added]:

 

 http://www.millennialstar.org/hunt-in-the-city-beautiful/

For the record, Brian Hales wrote: "I hope you won't portray any of

Joseph Smith's plural wives (especially Eliza R. Snow) as being

seduced by Bennett or one of his followers. It would make me sad and

would not be supportable from any documentation that I am familiar

with."

 

[mercyngrace]

Was there something specific that you felt needed a "response"?

 

No - that was probably not the best word choice. I was just looking to see if anyone had reviewed, reacted to, or otherwise discussed the book. I hadn't heard of the book until the article showed up in my FB feed and I was just curious. 

[readstoomuch]

There are quite a few book reviews about it starting to show up. I am curious if it is balanced. It is written by a nonmember and he sounds sympathetic. I think it is interesting to have someone actually look at Joseph Smith`s murder more carefully. It really hasn`t been discussed in detail (that I know of) since Marvin Hill and Dallin Oaks book from the 70`s.

Now, I also understand Meg Stout a little better. I was looking at that website and she had posted quite a bit about plural marriage, which I thought I knew quite a bit about. After reading her posts, I thought that it sounded a little..............different. I think that Eliza R Snow was one heck of a woman. In fact women like her being married to Joseph Smith always made me convinced that it was above board. There is no way that she got mixed up with John C Bennett. Now Sarah Pratt, that is another story. If I remember Danel Bachman`s thesis, I believe that is what he thought.

[Calm]

I think that Eliza R Snow was one heck of a woman. In fact women like her being married to Joseph Smith always made me convinced that it was above board. There is no way that she got mixed up with John C Bennett.

When you start rewriting what someone says in order to fit your own ideas, it is time to stand back and reevaluate what you are doing. Unfortunately she doesn't do that.

[readstoomuch]

Eliza R is a fine example of a feminist, Intellectual, poet and spunky woman who I would like on my team.

[rameumptom]

While I may not agree with Meg Stout on Eliza R Snow, some of her previous postings about Sarah Pratt and others does seem plausible.  I think she's trying to fit everything into a Joseph Smith vs John Bennett or good/evil setting, and it all doesn't necessarily have to be entwined like that.  That said, it seems possible that Joseph Smith was trying to rescue the virtue of some of Bennett's victims.

[Calm]

You would have to go item by item...which please don't as I am not interested in that at the minute having devoted several days worth of effort already...to get any agreement from me given what I see as some ridiculous assertions. I will give one example to demonstrate why I think her overall methodology stinks.

She claims in several cases contrary to what is stated by the actual involvement that there was no sexual relationship (or bouncey bouncey as she seems to need to call it). Even in the case where the brother reported Joseph and his sister shared a room on their wedding night she insists they had no sex. And she uses as proof lack of being children. For another plural wife who said she was Josph's wife in deed, she is just exaggerating it to her children and she never had sex with either Joseph or her later husband after Joseph died for two years out of respect or something. Evidence again is lack of children. She ignores the possibility of unreported miscarriages and the very real medical possibility of difficulty for a first time pregnancy being removed by the pregnancy itself (such as in adhesions in the Fallopian tubes being stretched, removing blockage. One study showed 20% of couples needing fertility treatments to get pregnant the first time not needing anything the second. Stress can also prevent pregnancy (think of all the stories of childless families adopting only to get pregnant...my niece is in that situation, I think they tried for ten years or so and then adopted and she promptly had two naturally so her oldest are almost the same age).

And if there were children or rumours of pregnancy soon after marriage, that is not proof of sex with their plural wives but of these women having been victims of seduction.

She has set her theory up so either way evidence must 'prove' her position.

That there are some ideas that may have value is certainly possible, but they would have to be completely independent from her main theses for mr to consider them without outside evidence clearly in support (and not just because she choose to rewrite what the woman says).

[cinepro]

Now, I also understand Meg Stout a little better. I was looking at that website and she had posted quite a bit about plural marriage, which I thought I knew quite a bit about. After reading her posts, I thought that it sounded a little..............different. I think that Eliza R Snow was one heck of a woman. In fact women like her being married to Joseph Smith always made me convinced that it was above board. There is no way that she got mixed up with John C Bennett. Now Sarah Pratt, that is another story. If I remember Danel Bachman`s thesis, I believe that is what he thought.

 

Have you read this article on Sarah Pratt?

 

Sarah M. Pratt: The Shaping of an Apostate

 

Page 79 discusses the Goddard affidavit regarding Sarah's alleged dalliance with Bennett.

[readstoomuch]

I have read that article on Sarah Pratt, as well as Brian Hales and Danel Bachman. There are others. Van Wagoner was never my favorite writer about polygamy. If there was any innuendo or doubt about Joseph Smith`s integrity he seemed to go that direction. I don`t know what the truth is with what happened with Sarah Pratt. Eliza Snow was there as well as a number of great women. Why did they come out of theh Nauvoo experience with their testimony of the prophet intact and Sarah didn`t. You can read the documents and much like polygamy in general, there are no absolute answers.

[juliann]

I do have to wonder why Sarah stayed with the Mormons given all that happened. That makes her purported deathbed confession that if Mormonism wasn't true there was no truth on earth rather intriguing.  Given that JS did approach other married women, I see no reason to not believe he approached her.  I also see no reason to think she may not have embellished or changed a few details when being treated so poorly.

 

That said, it seems possible that Joseph Smith was trying to rescue the virtue of some of Bennett's victims.

 

That makes no sense, in an out of the pot into the frying pan kind of way. Polygamy was shameful...which is why it was secret. There was no rescued virtue in such a situation, only scandal...which is why they lied about it. 

[bluebell]

That makes no sense, in an out of the pot into the frying pan kind of way. Polygamy was shameful...which is why it was secret. There was no rescued virtue in such a situation, only scandal...which is why they lied about it. 

 

Was polygamy shameful among LDS at this time and would those who knew about this alleged scandal with Bennet also know when Eliza became part of a plural marriage?

 

I don't personally believe all this conspiracy stuff that Meg is claiming, but it seems like the above questions would have to be answered before her argument can be said to be illogical based on the shame of polygamy.

[JLHPROF]

That makes no sense, in an out of the pot into the frying pan kind of way. Polygamy was shameful...which is why it was secret. There was no rescued virtue in such a situation, only scandal...which is why they lied about it. 

 

Nonsense.  Polygamy in the 1800's was viewed as a higher level of virtue, being the way God lived.  It was only the Victorian morality of the time that forced secrecy.  There was no shame to it.  At least according to the history as I understand it, they were embarrassed to be seen living it to worldly society in the days of Joseph, but never amongst those who had been taught.  And once polygamy was made public in the 1850's they ceased to care what society thought.

 

But to say polygamy was shameful is a misrepresentation.

Edited April 29, 2014 by JLHPROF

[MichelleD]

Nonsense. Polygamy in the 1800's was viewed as a higher level of virtue, being the way God lived. It was only the Victorian morality of the time that forced secrecy. There was no shame to it. At least according to the history as I understand it, they were embarrassed to be seen living it to worldly society in the days of Joseph, but never amongst those who had been taught. And once polygamy was made public in the 1850's they ceased to care what society thought.

But to say polygamy was shameful is a misrepresentation.

Why did Joseph hide it from Emma? That a husband had to go behind his beloved wife's back and secretly take other wives is shameful. I believe it destroyed the Prophet too.

I love the church but hate polygamy and believe it was a mistake. It still haunts the church to this day, causing many to leave and even more to show no interest in joining any organization with this in its history.

I do not believe it was from God. Do you really want to believe in a God that would command men to lie to their wives and trusting followers?

Edited April 29, 2014 by MichelleD

[juliann]

Was polygamy shameful among LDS at this time and would those who knew about this alleged scandal with Bennet also know when Eliza became part of a plural marriage?

 

I don't personally believe all this conspiracy stuff that Meg is claiming, but it seems like the above questions would have to be answered before her argument can be said to be illogical based on the shame of polygamy.

 It was adultery to anyone but the inner circle.  It started in Kirtland and it was his friends turning against him...the charge of the dirty affair.  The women who married him left accounts, like Lucy Walker bemoaning the disgrace and contempt she would receive from friends.  It was not only shameful, there were bigamy laws. It didn't become codified and open until later...even then it was compared to slavery.

 

As for Meg, when someone goes to the lengths of claiming common idioms like face to face mean sex and inserts words into poems, claiming that is what the author really meant to say...she loses all credibility, IMO. She has zero evidence that Eliza was engaging in an illicit affair with Bennett. I find her claim that JS was marrying women to save their reputations utterly absurd and defamatory.

[JLHPROF]

Why did Joseph hide it from Emma? That a husband had to go behind his beloved wife's back and secretly take other wives is shameful. I believe it destroyed the Prophet too.

I love the church but hate polygamy and believe it was a mistake. It still haunts the church to this day, causing many to leave and even more to show no interest in joining any organization with this in its history.

I do not believe it was from God. Do you really want to believe in a God that would command men to lie to their wives and trusting followers?

 

Wow.  I don't think I agreed with a single part of this.

 

Joseph hid it from Emma because he was commanded directly by God to restore plural marriage and knew what her response (probably quite rightly) would be.

I fail to see how one could love the Church and accept Joseph as a prophet while believing a piece of scripture direct from heaven through him was false.  If Joseph was the prophet then the Church is true.  If Joseph was fallen then there is no authority in the Church.

For a member to say polygamy was false is to say Joseph was fallen.  And if Joseph was fallen everything that came after polygamy, from eternal marriage to the temple was false, and Brigham Young was not the rightful prophetic successor.

 

I believe God commanded exactly what Joseph recorded and restored, including polygamy.

[bluebell]

 

 

As for Meg, when someone goes to the lengths of claiming common idioms like face to face mean sex and inserts words into poems, claiming that is what the author really meant to say...she loses all credibility, IMO. She has zero evidence that Eliza was engaging in an illicit affair with Bennett. I find her claim that JS was marrying women to save their reputations utterly absurd and defamatory.

 

I find it absurd as well.

 

It was more the reasons that make it absurd that i was trying to understand better.

[Calm]

.  At least according to the history as I understand it, they were embarrassed to be seen living it to worldly society in the days of Joseph, but never amongst those who had been taught. 

But Stout's premise is Joseph and others plurally married these women to protect them. Given that this would only protect them among those who were being privately taught plural marriage who already apparently knew they were victims, it was a pretty useless method of protecting them from the greater LDS community and definitely from the nonLDS world. The lack of knowledge about the relationships themselves is evidence IMO that there was no intent to use plural marriage as protection for these women. Something can't protect unless it is known.