Joseph Smith's Polyandry?

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

Hi Calm,

A girl who knew that she had entered into a covenant with Joseph Smith would be unlikely to believe anyone else who claimed that Joseph said it was OK for her to have sex with them.

 

I just don't see it as necessary or even reasonable that Joseph seal himself to a handful of young women, one at least who was from a family who was very close to Joseph and who had a very strong relationship with her parents, when a strong talk that he would never approve of sex outside of marriage and warn them that someone was lying about it would have been sufficient.  What about all the other young women in Nauvoo he was not sealed to...did he not care about them as well?  Were they any less vulnerable?

Edited June 22, 2016 by Calm

[kllindley]

Calm,

Do you prefer the explanation where Joseph seduced young girls then lied about it repeatedly only to invent a new revelation when he finally got caught?

[kllindley]

33 minutes ago, juliann said:

Look deeper. What you will see are members who value our Mormon ancestors

So you prefer the interpretation where these venerable ancestors were affirmatively consenting to have sex with Joseph and willing to lie to his wife about their affairs?  Or is it more that it's fine if Joseph seduced and oppressed them as long as it wasn't Bennett?

Honestly, this is confusing.  I guess I just don't see the terrible crime Meg has committed.  

[juliann]

12 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Calm,

Do you prefer the explanation where Joseph seduced young girls then lied about it repeatedly only to invent a new revelation when he finally got caught?

 False dilemma.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Calm,

Do you prefer the explanation where Joseph seduced young girls then lied about it repeatedly only to invent a new revelation when he finally got caught?

No.  Nor have I ever said anything that should lead someone to assume that.  I don't believe one has to buy even part of Meg Stout's theory or otherwise believe Joseph was in it for his sex drive.  There is a huge variety of possible positions between the two.  I believe that plural marriage was a revelation.  I believe when they spoke of celestial marriage, they meant marriage. Those sealed to each other were husband and wives or in the case of quite young women, most likely betrothed with intent for full marriage in a few years.  I also believe God didn't provide all the details and in working it out, Joseph made some mistakes (such as his treatment of Emma at times) as did others such as Emma.  I have no judgment about those mistakes rising to the level of sins because I don't believe we have enough detail to make that judgment nor any reason needed to.

What I am not seeing as likely is the explanation that most of what plural marriage was in Nauvoo (and at times in her blog it seems like everything else going on such as the creation of the Relief Society having the secret motivation to test the women's purity and root out those involved with Bennett and others) was primarily as a response to the "spiritual wifery" episode.  

[Meg Stout]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Juliann and I have read her original work, not all of it.  I know this because she and I discussed it extensively.  I read her entire blog when it first came out and went and read lots of her writing elsewhere to follw the development and to get the whole picture, see if she applied her methodology to other things, etc.

Hi Calm,

I'm trying to keep score between those who are upset that I would suggest that Joseph was not often (if ever) intimate with his plural wives and those who are upset that I propose that some of the women who are characterized as covenanting with Joseph Smith might have been vulnerable to seducers.

It might help if you were to share which women you care about and what I've written that bothers you so much.

I don't imagine you're terribly upset about what I say about Eliza Snow, as it appears you are concerned about an ancestor.

I don't think I said anything about Lucy Walker that would make someone see red.

A lot of people are mad that I raise the possibility that Emily Partridge might have lied under oath in 1894. And I have repeatedly commented that Emily didn't understand the difference between spiritual wifery and plural marriage, and was unwise to participate in scenes where people were told about the relationship with Joseph Smith (reported in the case of Jane Manning and obviously a factor in Orange Wight's knowledge of Joseph's wives). So perhaps that is the flash point.

Olive Frost and her child died in the fall of 1845, so I don't think she's the one you're upset about.

I don't think the Lawrence sisters have LDS progeny.

I don't think you're talking about any of the women Joseph approached about plural marriage prior to February 1842 (Fanny Alger, Louisa Beaman, Zina Jacobs, Presendia Buell, Agnes Coolbrith Smith, or Mary Elizabeth Lightner).

It doesn't seem like Sylvia Lyon or Patty Sessions would be a reason to be mad at me. Unless one is thoroughly wedded to the idea that Sylvia had an intimate relationship with Joseph and is unable to give that up despite the DNA finding.

It doesn't seem you're a cousin who might care about Elvira Annie Cowles.

I am aware that descendants of Vinson Knight are upset that I repeat what William Clayton wrote about "Brother Knight." So perhaps you are mad about what I say regarding the widow Vinson Knight was taking care of.

I forgot to mention Malissa Lott, but I know personally know lots of folks who are descended from her, and I don't get this sense of outrage from them.

Lastly, you might be someone descended from Mary Heron who really wants her to have been frigged by Joseph Smith. But that doesn't seem consistent with the anger I'm inferring from what you and juliann have said.

I thought I had answered Juliann's questions, but clearly I missed something and so have talked past her.

It appears there is a particular woman you care about, and so you are casting aspersions at everything I say and write in an attempt to invalidate what I've said about that one person.

[Meg Stout]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe that plural marriage was a revelation.  I believe when they spoke of celestial marriage, they meant marriage. Those sealed to each other were husband and wives or in the case of quite young women, most likely betrothed with intent for full marriage in a few years...  

What I am not seeing as likely is the explanation that most of what plural marriage was in Nauvoo (and at times in her blog it seems like everything else going on such as the creation of the Relief Society having the secret motivation to test the women's purity and root out those involved with Bennett and others) was primarily as a response to the "spiritual wifery" episode.  

Hi Calm,

How do you explain the census of 1842, the founding purpose to "warn the unwary," the way membership in Relief Society was tightly controlled, and the testimonies of Catherine Fuller, Margaret and Matilda Nyman, Sarah Miller, Mary Clift, and Esther Smith?

I realize in my other comments, I forgot to include Sarah Peak and Lucina Johnston in the list of those where descendants might not like my narrative. Also Heber C. Kimball's descendants. I don't think Brigham's descendants would be mad about my version of events, other than those who descend from Emily.

Do you assert that there was no spiritual wifery or illicit intercourse heresy? If there was an illicit intercourse heresy, why does it make sense that Joseph was out there marrying dozens of women and having sex with them and miraculously not producing children?

Edited June 22, 2016 by Meg Stout

[Calm]

I am not upset.  Why are you assuming this is an emotional response?

Do you want to be treated as a historian or a writer of historical fiction?  If the first, then you better get used to being evaluated for your methodology and your conclusions by anyone who comes across your writings.

What I care about is good history (accuracy and precision in academics in general) and if I don't see it in work claiming to those qualities, I may point out the lack and usually the why.  Good historians are generally skeptical of their own theories, even when passionate about them, and you can usually see how they have adjusted their work when worthwhile criticisms have been made.  A good warning sign imo to poor historical work is little change in response to others' criticisms as well as ongoing defensiveness (everyone will be defensive at the moment of criticism, a scholar must learn to put aside that defensiveness and be able to see his work with the eyes of others, so to speak).

Usually I would go into much more detail and I may have in the past here on the details of your claim, which you can find by searching if it is here and han't been deleted. (can't remember if it was on the board or elsewhere).  Right now I have some neuropathy that is aggravated by typing and I have already broken my posting limits a dozen times today so this will be it.

PS:  I see your attempt here at mindreading my motivations as a great example of misreading material, unfounded speculation and jumping to conclusions.   This is adding to my viewing your methodology as highly faulty.  If you are serious about doing historical work...and you seem to be...I would encourage you to get into the academics and let the experts teach you how to best critique yourself.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Calm

[Rain]

16 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

It appears there is a particular woman you care about, and so you are casting aspersions at everything I say and write in an attempt to invalidate what I've said about that one person.

You are not getting it. They are not upset about some particular ancestor. They feel that poor methodology is putting these women in an untruthful light. 

[JulieM]

39 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

It doesn't seem like Sylvia Lyon or Patty Sessions would be a reason to be mad at me. Unless one is thoroughly wedded to the idea that Sylvia had an intimate relationship with Joseph and is unable to give that up despite the DNA finding.

 

The DNA finding only proved that Joseph was not the biological father of Josephine.  It proved nothing about whether or not Sylvia had a physical relationship with Joseph as one of his wives. You get that, right? 

 

Edited June 22, 2016 by JulieM

[saemo]

On June 20, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Meg Stout said:

The interesting thing only one exception all the women who actually had children had husbands who were not members. All the women whose husbands were members of the church, with the exception of Esther, did not have any children during the period of time with which during which they were in a covenant relationship with Joseph.

to the question about Briggeman his wife he had a number of different types of relationships with women. Somewhere on the covenants were only for eternity and some were only for time without any apparent sexual component. There's a nice article in one of the Persistence of Polygamy books that points out Brigham only really had 16 wives, but had covenanted in some form with roughly 50.

I don't think I could even make a guess as to what these correlations are supposed to mean.  

 

 

Edited June 22, 2016 by saemo

[JulieM]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you want to be treated as a historian or a writer of historical fiction?  If the first, then you better get used to being evaluated for your methodology and your conclusions by anyone who comes across your writings.

I went over and read for a bit on Meg's blog today. I'm not a serious historian, but I found something in nearly every paragraph that I knew I could find a source to dispute it (or at least cast doubt on it).   So much supposition or twisting things to fit a certain narrative and then stating them as facts.

I read some comments (and see this in most of her supporters here too) and it seems they don't want to research too deeply themselves and just accept her theories on face value because they fit the scenario they need or want to believe.  

I know this is a generalization, but it's my impression after reading on there today.

I do think Meg has done some good research.

Edited June 22, 2016 by JulieM

[jkwilliams]

To quote from a friend of mine: What's the furthest extreme polar opposite of parsimony? What might that look like?

Over a year ago, I went through Meg's assertions pretty thoroughly on my blog. In the end, I ended up listing a number of her assertions and simply asked for documentary evidence for any of them. You can see her responses in the comments:

https://runtu.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/an-opportunity-for-meg-stout/

To summarize, she provided documentary evidence for only one of these many assertions. The rest are based on assumptions and hunches. Maybe I'm not far enough in the autism spectrum, but I am not persuaded.

[Meg Stout]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

I do think Meg has done some good research.

Thank you for that.

I won't delete my earliest blog posts at M* because they constitute history. But those early posts are not informed by the later documentation that solidified my opinion that what I had found was not merely a plausible interpretation but a probable interpretation. That is why I have posted the link to the book, which reflects careful scholarship (where the early blog posts, in particular, did not).

http://www.millennialstar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Reluctant-Polygamist-5th-edition.pdf

It is particularly important to understand the rules of conscientious history:

Appendix A – Conscientious History: A Guide

A reasonable person will want to observe a few short rules when reconstructing or evaluating history. Adapted from Wendie E. Schneider’s distillation of the 2000 ruling in Irving v. Penguin Books and Lipstadt.

1. Know the Basics of Evidence

   1. Primary Evidence is created by a participant in the event under investigation

      1. Contemporary evidence is created at the time of the event

      2. Late evidence (usually recollection) is created after the event

   2. Secondary Evidence, contemporary or late, is created by those not present at the event and is often speculation

   3. Provenance

      1. If the story or artifact changed hands, was there opportunity for unintentional error to have crept in?

      2. Was any source likely to have altered the story or artifact?

   4. Plausibility

      1. Is the story or artifact anachronistic?

      2. Is the story or artifact contradicted by science?

2. Evaluate the Evidence before Finalizing a Conclusion

   1. Treat all sources with appropriate reservations

   2. Don’t dismiss counter-evidence without scholarly consideration

   3. Be even-handed in treatment of evidence

   4. Identify speculation when suggesting conclusions

   5. Correctly transcribe or translate documents. Omissions or elisions

      should be used to clarify evidence, not alter it

   6. Weigh the authenticity of all accounts

   7. Consider the motives of historical actors

3. Avoid Fraud, the deliberate misrepresentation or manipulation of historical evidence

   1. Do not knowingly present forgery as genuine

   2. Do not suggest implausible reasons for dismissing genuine evidence or reasonable conjecture

   3. Do not attribute distorted conclusions to sources

   4. Do not manipulate statistics to alter conclusions

   5. Do not deliberately mis-translate texts.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Meg Stout

[jkwilliams]

For the record, I don't have an issue with Meg's research but rather her conclusions, which seem only loosely related to the research.

[Glenn101]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

And if I am reading Phebe's account correctly, the four children including Josephine were informed they weren't returning to live with Phebe's father in Iowa City in order to be among the Saints so they could receive the blessing of their "special heritage", being the children of Joseph Smith through the sealing.  

Phebe identifies a specific example where knowledge of the sealing is given as the reason for a decision being made when the entire family is directly involved ( or so I read it) and Josephine is specifically identified as one involved.

The conversation about the sealing was between Heber C. Kimball and Sylvia concerning the sealing. Heber then met the four children. Phebe does not say what Heber talked with them about, just that he met them. The upshot is that he advised Sylvia to remain in Utah so the children could "receive the teachings of the gospel without conflicting opinions."

As I have noted, the first time Phebe notes a time frame for the sealing is when she and Josephine were called jointly to Sylvia's bedside just before her death to reveal the information that Josephine was Joseph's daughter. Also I have noted where previous to that communication Phebe seemed to be under the impression that she and her Clark siblings were the only ones that been born under that sealing covenant.

It can certainly be read that way. And, as I have also noted, the circumstances in Nauvoo at the time (which have not been addressed by those who hold different opinions) make that a rational and plausible interpretation of the data.

Glenn

[Meg Stout]

I have evaluated the evidence regarding early Nauvoo plural marriage and illicit intercouse and put forward a narrative that differs significantly from either the narrative currently believed by faithful Mormons and the narrative promoted by those who consider Joseph Smith an utter scoundrel.

I have treated my sources with appropriate reservation in the book. Sometimes when I am live I get more feisty.

I have put forward evidence that does not fit the current narratives. This evidence is being dismissed without scholarly consideration. In the book I have always couched my hypotheses in the subjunctive. And some of the reasons I question the evidence supporting the current narrative boils down to the credibility of the source of that evidence. In the book I explain why I consider some sources to be less credible. In this thread too I have shown why some sources (e.g., Joseph H. Jackson) might not be credible.

Consistently my reasonable conjectures are simply being dismissed or are dismissed based on implausible reasons. In the book I mention these alternatives, but highlight where a scholar taking an alternate stance must do more than push the "Nope Nope nope nope nope nope" button.

The fact that no one else has so much as considered the narrative I am putting forward is the reason I sometimes get snippy about being the only one who has seen what I have seen. It is not that others can't see it. But no other researcher has previously wondered, for example, why a census was taken of Nauvoo in 1842, particularly when the High Council minutes of 18 January 1842 specify that the original purpose was to have “the Priests visit from house to house...,”  “that the Council should call on the Presidents of the Lesser Priest-hood to attend the Council & receive instruction... That it was necessary for them to go from house to house, to his house, and to every house and see that every family done their duty...”

Of the many researchers aware of the testimonies the seduced women gave in May 1842, none have taken the testimonies at face value. Gary Bergera's article on the illicit intercourse published in the John Whitmer journal paints these confessions as cover ups for Joseph's plural marriage teachings.

No one else had bothered identifying the date of Brigham Young's attempt to persuade Martha Brotherton to participate in an extra-monogamous relationship, or wondered aloud about the identity of the BY mentioned in William Clayton's journal.

Because you are staunchly positioned in the camp of the majority opinions, you feel confident casting unspecific aspersions at my work. It is claimed that my suppositions are provably bogus, but it is not clarified which suppositions are being evaluated or which counter evidence is so readily available to disprove what I have put forward. As people here are mentioning my blog posts, it is not clear that the suppositions that are being dismissed are even assertions I make in the book. For all I know, you are criticizing early hypotheses that I don't even agree with anymore.

What you are doing here is making it clear that anyone who were to give credence to my hypotheses will be branded an outcast. I can see some future person opining that they've found some interesting material written by someone named Meg Stout and being shouted down based on the fact that Meg Stout is a known fraud, fiction writer, and nut job. I know this has happened because someone forwarded a comment thread that was written the day I put up my very first post, where the person merely mentioning that I had written something (and any future someone's who might dare to mention my series) was threatened with being barred for mentioning my name (I believe that was a thread from a Facebook group).

What is occurring here is not peer review. It is the patronizing dismissal of those confident that they need not bother responding to inconvenient possibilities that threaten their worldview.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Meg Stout

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Meg Stout said:

What is occurring here is not peer review. It is the patronizing dismissal of those confident that they need not bother responding to inconvenient possibilities that threaten their worldview.

No, that is not what is happening. A historian bases a theory/narrative on documentary evidence, and several people, myself included, have noted that you haven't supported your thesis with documentary evidence. There's a lot of "misreading material, unfounded speculation and jumping to conclusions," but precious little based on documentation. Even if you had provided documentary evidence, your thesis doesn't make a lot of sense, and as others have pointed out, the reason for the scholarly consensus isn't that we're all "neurologically typical, which means you are more strongly influenced by the prevailing theories expressed by your peers than by data." Talk about patronizing. As someone who actually does fall in the autism spectrum, you do not speak for me or anyone else. 

[Meg Stout]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

The DNA finding only proved that Joseph was not the biological father of Josephine.  It proved nothing about whether or not Sylvia had a physical relationship with Joseph as one of his wives. You get that, right? 

 

I think I have repeatedly acknowledged that Joseph Smith could have been having sex with any number of entities. I don't think it is likely in many cases that have been asserted with confidence, such as in the case of Sylvia Lyon. There are reports for Emily Partridge and Malissa Lott that make those possibilities worth considering, though I'll still persist in pointing out problems related to either motivation or provenance.

I and others are merely putting forward the reasonable conjecture that complete lack of any DNA confirmation that Joseph Smith is genetically related to postulated children might be correlated with the possibility that Joseph Smith had not yet gotten around to personally consummating his plural marriages, with the possible exception of a reported/alleged cases with otherwise single women who managed to not conceive.

I believe in an omniscient God who will someday share all truth with us (one reading of Paul's comment about seeing face to face and knowing as we are known, rather than looking through a glass darkly). In that future day of hoped-for complete knowledge, I look forward to demonstrating to my husband a few instances where his lack of recollection regarding what he had promised were not correlated with him not having promised. And in that day I look forward to learning which of my hypotheses were correct and which were not.

Because I believe in that future where truth is knowable, I'm not terribly bothered if some individuals are willing to dismiss me. I believe in that future that I will love those who currently denigrate me and God will love them, so if any chiding is in order, it will not hamper the believing soul from attaining the highest glory they are willing to accept. That will be true whether the chided soul is mine or of another.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

I think I have repeatedly acknowledged that Joseph Smith could have been having sex with any number of entities. I don't think it is likely in many cases that have been asserted with confidence, such as in the case of Sylvia Lyon. There are reports for Emily Partridge and Malissa Lott that make those possibilities worth considering, though I'll still persist in pointing out problems related to either motivation or provenance.

Herein lies the problem: you "persist in pointing out problems" because your thesis runs counter to the evidence, regardless of the motivation or provenance. A good example is your repeated assertion that Louisa Beaman did not consummate her marriage with Joseph, which you then use as a launching point for a lot of speculation. Of course, the only evidence we have is from Joseph Bates Noble:

Quote

686 Q-You said the other day that the night you married them they slept together, and now today you say after you married them you went across the river and did not stay there that night? Now I want you to answer the plain square question. Did he sleep with her the first night after the ceremony was performed?
A-He did.
687 Q-Now you say that he did sleep with her?
A-I do.
688 Q-How do you know he did?
A-Well I was there.
689 Q-And you saw them go to bed together?
A-I gave him counsel.
690 Q-What counsel did you give him?
A-I said “blow out the lights and get into bed, and you will be safer there,” and he took my advice or counsel. (witness laughs heartily.)
693 Q-You went across the river did you not,-is that not what you said?
A-Yes sir, but I told him that.
…
695 Q-Well when was it you told him that?
A-It was in the night time.
700 Q-Well did you stay there until the lights were blown out?
A-No sir I did not stay until they blowed out the lights then.
701 Q-Well you did not see him get into bed with her that time?
A-No sir.
702 Q-And so you don’t know whether he followed your advice from your own knowledge?
A-No sir, I did not see him, but he told me he did.
703 Q-But you don’t know it of your own knowledge from seeing him do it?
A-No sir, I think not.

According to your blog post entitled "Why I am not Persuaded Joseph Smith had Sex with Plural Wives": "This is undoubtedly proof that Joseph and Louisa Beaman spent an evening in the same room. There is no suggestion that Joseph Bates Noble actually witnessed intercourse." This, of course, is a ridiculous standard of evidence: if Joseph Noble didn't actually "witness intercourse," then all we can say is that Joseph and Louisa spent the night in a bedroom with the lights out. 

As others have noted, we are talking about marriages, and, even if we didn't have explicit evidence of "carnal intercourse" (we do), we must accept that a wedding night--especially one spent alone together in a dark bedroom--typically involves sexuality, unless there is a compelling reason to believe otherwise. The only compelling reason in this case is that you don't want to believe it, for whatever reason. 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

As I have noted, the first time Phebe notes a time frame for the sealing is when she and Josephine were called jointly to Sylvia's bedside just before her death to reveal the information that Josephine was Joseph's daughter.

That's not correct.  Phebe stated that her Mother "had spoken often of her 'special sealing' to the Prophet Joseph Smith".

Do you really believe this means that Sylvia spoke often about the sealing on her deathbed?

[jkwilliams]

I'll make this easy. Please provide documentary evidence for the following statement from your blog:

"The marriage between Joseph Smith and Louisa Beaman likely remained unconsummated."

Edited June 22, 2016 by jkwilliams

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Meg Stout said:

I think I have repeatedly acknowledged that Joseph Smith could have been having sex with any number of entities. I don't think it is likely in many cases that have been asserted with confidence, such as in the case of Sylvia Lyon. 

The statements we have are good evidence that Sylvia really did believe Joseph was the biological Father of Josephine.  For her to believe this, there would have had to have been a physical relationship with Joseph.

Do we know this for sure?  No.  But look at the evidence and use some sound logic here.

Why does it bother you so much to think that Joseph treated her like the wife she was?

Why would you think Joseph would restore the principle of plural marriage and not live it correctly himself as an example for those to whom he was teaching it?  

It's amazing that you really believe that Joseph just never got around to consummating his marriages before his death!  Do you know the dates of his marriages and the date of his death?

Edited June 22, 2016 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

59 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

I believe in an omniscient God who will someday share all truth with us

If you believe that truth to include who Joseph did and did not have sex with in mortality I think you'll have a very long wait.

This entire thread topic is ridiculous - Joseph had relations with some but not all of his plural wives.  There is nothing else of consequence to be said on the matter other than lurid speculation.

[jkwilliams]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If you believe that truth to include who Joseph did and did not have sex with in mortality I think you'll have a very long wait.

This entire thread topic is ridiculous - Joseph had relations with some but not all of his plural wives.  There is nothing else of consequence to be said on the matter other than lurid speculation.

The problem here is that Meg is "not persuaded" that "Joseph had relations with some but not all of his plural wives." What you call "lurid speculation" is merely a discussion of the evidence for sexual polygamy.