Babies Born In Nauvoo To Polygamous Wives

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, that's probably another topic for another thread.  I think I remember a thread on that actually.  I don't remember there being any lies in the Expositor, but I may be mistaken (I do have a copy of it and read it at one time).  I understand why Joseph didn't want all revealed at that time.

A topic for another thread indeed, but I'll state in a general sense that I have always felt very strongly that a deception or a distortion based on half-truth is as bad as a full-blown lie. Perhaps even worse because it can so insidiously disguise itself as the truth.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it would be unlikely for alert and intelligent members not to know this. Didn't Brigham Young and other Church leaders assert it in order to combat the verbal attacks of splinter groups of members that had not joined in the exodus to the West?

That's true.  I remember reading the book, Blood Atonement and Origin of Plural Marriage (1905)   (the writings and debate between Joseph Fielding Smith and a leader in the RLDS church which included the affidavits, etc.).  It's a fascinating book.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A topic for another thread indeed, but I'll state in a general sense that I have always felt very strongly that a deception or a distortion based on half-truth is as bad as a full-blown lie. Perhaps even worse because it can so insidiously disguise itself as the truth.

Didn't someone offer a reward for finding any "vicious lies" in the Expositor?  I'll have to look that up.

Do you have a copy of the Expositor?  It's pretty interesting to read.....

(And I agree that it's a topic for another thread.)

Edited March 21, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Didn't someone offer a reward for finding any "vicious lies" in the Expositor?  I'll have to look that up.

Do you have a copy of the Expositor?  It's pretty interesting to read.....

(And I agree that it's a topic for another thread.)

 I have a copy. I've read it. And I agree that it's a topic for another thread and one that indeed has already been explored here in the past.

I'll just say in elaboration of my prior comment that where there is deception by means of distortion -- which would include slanting, out-of-context quotation or citation, inflammatory language, etc. -- it might be difficult to pinpoint a specific lie in response to the offer of a reward such as you mention here. That's what makes it so insidious.

For example, John C. Bennett claimed that the arguments he was using to seduce women were identical to the doctrines Joseph Smith taught privately with regard to plural marriage. I would earnestly regard this as a damnable lie, but if I were to cite it as an example to the reward offerer you mentioned above, he would probably just contradict me, and we wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

By the way, I found that offer of a reward you mention, but it's on an anti-Mormon website, and I refuse on principle to link to it, even if I were allowed to do so under board guidelines (which I don't think I am).

Edited March 21, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[juliann]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

That never made sense to me.  It would also mean that Brigham Young (and other leaders and men in Nauvoo and later in Utah) lived polygamy differently than Joseph did.

It's like some feel Joseph should be held to a higher (or at least a different) standard when talking about marital relations with his plural wives.

Members and some apologists are just fine that other Prophets had relations with women who were still married to other men (legally) and with their other plural wives, but strenuously argue or fight against admitting that Joseph did. 

Why do you think there is this double standard? They were all living the same principle, correct?

I am not aware of anyone who can be considered knowledgeable saying JS didn't do the deed. It is actually about "proving"  women were not engaging in polyandry. Thus, there will always be a disclaimer that a married woman wasn't "really" married when she was sealed to another man. (Yeah, I'm lookin' at you A Larsen ;-)  Not once have I ever seen a demand that a man live with all of his wives in one place to be considered "really" married but that is routine for women. So even if married, they are "separated" from the first husband. Apparently women were unable to live apart from a husband or travel from house to house as men routinely did. Or something. Whatever is going on with this expectation that women uphold the purity of polygamy by only having one husband at a time , it is a teetering house of cards stacked on a paucity of women's sources.

I am reminded of the recent conference where the director of the Church Library gave rules for historians of women's history....never assume you have seen all the sources. Hundreds of women's sources are being digitalized as we type.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

I am not aware of anyone who can be considered knowledgeable saying JS didn't do the deed. It is actually about "proving"  women were not engaging in polyandry. Thus, there will always be a disclaimer that a married woman wasn't "really" married when she was sealed to another man. (Yeah, I'm lookin' at you A Larsen ;-)  Not once have I ever seen a demand that a man live with all of his wives in one place to be considered "really" married but that is routine for women. So even if married, they are "separated" from the first husband. Apparently women were unable to live apart from a husband or travel from house to house as men routinely did. Or something. Whatever is going on with this expectation that women uphold the purity of polygamy by only having one husband at a time , it is a teetering house of cards stacked on a paucity of women's sources.

I am reminded of the recent conference where the director of the Church Library gave rules for historians of women's history....never assume you have seen all the sources. Hundreds of women's sources are being digitalized as we type.

Appertaining to which, here is my news story of that presentation by Keith Erekson, director of the Church History Library.

Here's a relevant snippet from my story;
 

Quote

 

Brother Erekson concluded his lecture with some “don’ts.”

“Don’t omit women. Ever.

“Don’t just add women somewhere as a vignette or a sidebar or a chapter or a section or on a pedestal.

“Don’t see women only as wives and daughters and as auxiliary members. There’s so much more to be seen, to be understood, to be contextualized.

“Don’t think that women’s history is only for women or for historians.

“Finally, don’t assume that you have seen all the sources.”

 

 

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

It is actually about "proving"  women were not engaging in polyandry. Thus, there will always be a disclaimer that a married woman wasn't "really" married when she was sealed to another man. (Yeah, I'm lookin' at you A Larsen ;-)

Where have I stated that?  I've said just the opposite actually, is that what you are referring to?

I know that JLHPROF believes that these women were not "really" married to other men even though they were married by the laws of the land (but not in the eyes of God which I know was believed back then by some as well).  But I believe they were "really" married to their legal husband. 

(And I agree about it actually being the women who would have been living polyandry.)

.

Edited March 21, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Interesting, thanks.  William Clayton's diary was the only reference I'd seen regarding this possibly happening.

Do you know how Heber and Vilate handled Sarah Noon's pregnancy and child?  Is there anything written about this?

.

Helen wrote a little about it in her autobiography.  Iirc, she didn't have a clue what was going, including the marriage, until later.

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

I am reminded of the recent conference where the director of the Church Library gave rules for historians of women's history....never assume you have seen all the sources. Hundreds of women's sources are being digitalized as we type.

Very cool.  I look forward to reading them!

[ALarson]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 I have a copy. I've read it. And I agree that it's a topic for another thread and one that indeed has already been explored here in the past.

I'll just say in elaboration of my prior comment that where there is deception by means of distortion -- which would include slanting, out-of-context quotation or citation, inflammatory language, etc. -- it might be difficult to pinpoint a specific lie in response to the offer of a reward such as you mention here. That's what makes it so insidious.

For example, John C. Bennett claimed that the arguments he was using to seduce women were identical to the doctrines Joseph Smith taught privately with regard to plural marriage. I would earnestly regard this as a damnable lie, but if I were to cite it as an example to the reward offerer you mentioned above, he would probably just contradict me, and we wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

By the way, I found that offer of a reward you mention, but it's on an anti-Mormon website, and I refuse on principle to link to it, even if I were allowed to do so under board guidelines (which I don't think I am).

I don't remember the website it was posted on (or if I ever even looked at it but just read about it on this or another forum).

I agree that things can be taken out of context (by both sides of any debate) and also that 2 people can read the same information and come to completely different conclusions (just read nearly every thread on here  )

 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Very cool.  I look forward to reading them!

I think Erekson's point (and I sat next to juliann during the lecture) is that you have to come to the library (physically or online) and access them, not that they will be handed to you on a silver platter as it were.

Although conceivably, historians going forward, it is to be hoped, will draw on the availability and accessibility of these sources in the histories they write.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Helen wrote a little about it in her autobiography.  Iirc, she didn't have a clue what was going, including the marriage, until later.

I think I remember that too.  I'll try to look it up....thanks!

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, juliann said:

I am reminded of the recent conference where the director of the Church Library gave rules for historians of women's history....never assume you have seen all the sources. Hundreds of women's sources are being digitalized as we type.

That is very cool.
Any chance we could get this digitized?

http://churchhistorycatalog.lds.org/primo_library/libweb/action/dlSearch.do?search_scope=CHL&institution=PCHD&onCampus=true&highlight=true&displayField=title&displayField=creator&displayField=description&displayField=ispartof&displayField=lds02&vid=CHL_PUBLIC&query=any,contains,eliza r. snow necklace

Images of necklace belonging to Eliza R. Snow. Necklace consists of locket and chain containing Egyptian motifs. Pictures of Joseph Smith and Eliza R. Snow were inserted in locket later.
My understanding is the prophet Joseph had this specially made for Eliza and the Egyptian "motifs' have special meaning.  I've seen a bad Xerox of the photo and a translation with no authentication.  I'd love to see the original but unfortunately it is "Terms Governing Access: Unprocessed. Closed to research pending processing and review."

[JulieM]

39 minutes ago, juliann said:

I am not aware of anyone who can be considered knowledgeable saying JS didn't do the deed. It is actually about "proving"  women were not engaging in polyandry. Thus, there will always be a disclaimer that a married woman wasn't "really" married when she was sealed to another man. 

I have read many who still argue that Joseph didn't consummate his polyandrous marriages.  I know one can debate if it was even polyandry, but these women did already have husbands.  I feel many women were victims and just really believed their Prophet needed them and they left their husbands (not all of them were victims of course, each case was separate but many had children with their first husband too).

Or do you believe they were not "really" married to their first husband?  What do you believe here?

I also remember reading that the woman would need to be having relations with both husbands for it to technically be polyandry for her (not just her having 2 or more husbands at the same time).

Edited March 21, 2016 by JulieM

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I know one can debate if it was even polyandry, but these women did already have husbands.  I feel many women were victims and just really believed their Prophet needed them and they left their husbands (not all of them were victims of course, each case was separate but many had children with their first husband too).

.....

 I also remember reading that the woman would need to be having relations with both husbands for it to technically be polyandry for her (not just her having 2 or more husbands at the same time).

I think it had to be confusing for many of the women involved.  I believe they really believed they had two husbands, but that only one of their marriages was sanctioned by God.  I'm sure it was complicated when it came to the children they already had with their legal husbands (for all involved).

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That is very cool.
Any chance we could get this digitized?

http://churchhistorycatalog.lds.org/primo_library/libweb/action/dlSearch.do?search_scope=CHL&institution=PCHD&onCampus=true&highlight=true&displayField=title&displayField=creator&displayField=description&displayField=ispartof&displayField=lds02&vid=CHL_PUBLIC&query=any,contains,eliza r. snow necklace

Images of necklace belonging to Eliza R. Snow. Necklace consists of locket and chain containing Egyptian motifs. Pictures of Joseph Smith and Eliza R. Snow were inserted in locket later.
My understanding is the prophet Joseph had this specially made for Eliza and the Egyptian "motifs' have special meaning.  I've seen a bad Xerox of the photo and a translation with no authentication.  I'd love to see the original but unfortunately it is "Terms Governing Access: Unprocessed. Closed to research pending processing and review."

From my news story:
 

Quote

 

Brother Erekson said that at this point, a crossroads, it is appropriate to ask: “How can we place their lives and their stories in context? What can be learned from more systematic analysis?”

Much, it turns out, largely because of the proliferation of sources of late.

In the Church History Library alone are some 9,000 diaries and autobiographies of which nearly 1,600 are written by women, Brother Erekson said.

A team of cataloguers processes about 500 print and rare materials a month, he said. “I also have a team that processes our archival materials, collections that range from maybe two or three letters to 150 boxes of letters and correspondence and papers. We work through about 300 of these collections a month.”

He invited history enthusiasts to come to the library but said they don’t even have to do that to access its holdings. The library has worked in partnership with BYU to post digital images that can be accessed through history.lds.org.

“Today we have 6.8 million digital images available right now on the catalog; 2.7 million were digitized in 2015 alone,” he said.

 

So apparently, they are moving along with reasonable dispatch, and it is just a matter of time before they get to it.

But I should think you could pose your question to the Church History Library staff. I have always found them to be reasonably responsive.

I note there is an "Ask Us" link on the home page here. Perhaps that is a good place to start.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From my news story:
 

So apparently, they are moving along with reasonable dispatch, and it is just a matter of time before they get to it.

But I should think you could pose your question to the Church History Library staff. I have always found them to be reasonably responsive.

I note there is an "Ask Us" link on the home page here. Perhaps that is a good place to start.

Worth a shot.  But it has been "Unprocessed. Closed to research pending processing and review." for several years now.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Worth a shot.  But it has been "Unprocessed. Closed to research pending processing and review." for several years now.

Are you suggesting that it is being deliberately suppressed as opposed to it being simply a matter of their not having gotten to it yet?

Edited March 21, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think it had to be confusing for many of the women involved.  I believe they really believed they had two husbands, but that only one of their marriages was sanctioned by God.  I'm sure it was complicated when it came to the children they already had with their legal husbands (for all involved).

I know many (at least wives of Joseph) continued living with their legal husbands, right?  At least that is what I remember reading.  They must have considered these men to be their husbands (1st marriage), but not their eternal spouse after they were sealed to Joseph.  I'd imagine those who had left their 1st husbands (or had been abandoned by them), may have no longer felt married to them.  I agree that it was probably confusing for them and also for any of their children.

Edited March 21, 2016 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you suggesting that it is being deliberately suppressed as opposed to it being simply a matter of their not having gotten to it yet?

No, I'm not THAT cynical. 
Just a little impatient and prior to finding this catalog item a few years back I spent some wasted time trying to google a better image of it and couldn't find it.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, I'm not THAT cynical. 
Just a little impatient and prior to finding this catalog item a few years back I spent some wasted time trying to google a better image of it and couldn't find it.

At any rate, a direct inquiry to the Church History Library via the link I suggested might bear fruit.

[juliann]

51 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Where have I stated that?  I've said just the opposite actually, is that what you are referring to?

I know that JLHPROF believes that these women were not "really" married to other men even though they were married by the laws of the land (but not in the eyes of God which I know was believed back then by some as well).  But I believe they were "really" married to their legal husband. 

(And I agree about it actually being the women who would have been living polyandry.)

.

I was referring to what you said earlier....

Quote

In trying to look up more information on Sarah Noon, I read that she was already legally married to another man at the time she married Heber.  But it appears she was separated from him. 

I don't know what you were intending, but what I have seen uses "separated" as a euphemism for they weren't having marital relations. Meanwhile, almost every man is "separated" from his wives at some point. It is not until the Manifesto that separation for the man is given as proof of a dissolved marriage.

I think that needs to be stopped given we have so little information about he women. There shouldn't be a new definition for marriage depending on gender. I have never seen Missouri law discussed in relation to these "separations" either.  A wife was considered to be her husband, for all practical purposes, she legally lived where he was whether she actually did or not. There were divorces available in Missouri so it makes absolutely no sense in a Victorian age that a woman would not avail herself of it if she was merely moving on to another husband. BY certainly had no qualms about setting that up.

This has all been so poorly thought through, in my opinion, that it has become rather knee jerk to simply assume that no woman would really have two husbands. I don't think we will ever understand what JS was up to until we get over it and begin to look at what really did happen. Which requires pulling such conclusions until more evidence is in.

[The above is a general rant not directed at anyone.]

Great article, Scott!

 

[juliann]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think it had to be confusing for many of the women involved.  I believe they really believed they had two husbands, but that only one of their marriages was sanctioned by God.  

Why? Does the available evidence show any confusion at all? 

Quote

 I'm sure it was complicated when it came to the children they already had with their legal husbands (for all involved).

Wasn't the original purpose to have everyone sealed to a high ranking person? 

Edited March 21, 2016 by juliann

[juliann]

I think the confusion occurred over how to manage it, there were no rules, no customs, they had to make it up as they went along when it came to daily living. I seriously doubt there was any confusion at all over its purpose. Helen Mar is a good example of that. She knew what it meant for her family but was unaware of the restrictions she faced  in her real life. 

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

I was referring to what you said earlier....

I don't know what you were intending, but what I have seen uses "separated" as a euphemism for they weren't having marital relations. Meanwhile, almost every man is "separated" from his wives at some point. It is not until the Manifesto that separation for the man is given as proof of a dissolved marriage.

Thanks for the clarification.  When I stated that it appeared Sarah Noon was "separated" from her legal husband, I was only going on what I'd read (when I looked her up).  It stated she'd come over from England and had left her husband (I'm not sure if he stayed in England of if she left him after they came over).  I wasn't intending anything by stating that, only repeating what I had read.