Joseph Smith's Polyandry?

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

I have made my book available. Feel free to point out anything in the book that you feel contradicts the documents and testimonies available to us. But remember, there is a difference between contradicting the evidence and contradicting the prevailing construct people have built based on the evidence (often by discarding inconvenient evidence, such as the testimonies of women seduced by Bennett and his Strikers, particularly the testimonies that were published in the newspaper in 1844).

Meg, who were the other members of "Bennett and his Strikers"?  Do you have evidence to support that this group existed?

So, you believe that all of these testimonies from Joseph's wives came from women who were lying and women who had been seduced by Bennett and his Strikers?  What evidence to you have of this?

[Meg Stout]

Hi ALarson,

Awesome!

Note that in the book I am not proclaiming that the Jonathan story is necessarily the right story. I am merely pointing out that this is an alternative that has been ignored.

With respect to Oliver Cowdery as officiant, Oliver had been at Joseph's side for so many other important matters. The officiant people presume is Levi Hancock, but Levi never claimed he'd been involved and Mosiah wasn't of an age to have know Levi would have officiated. As I recall, Todd Compton did a very nice job of pointing out the problems in assuming Mosiah's tale was right, while simultaneously indicating that there was enough to suggest Fanny's relationship with Joseph was more likely a marriage than an affair. Don Bradley's subsequent article on Fanny Alger is absolutely masterful.

With respect to Jonathan, he appears to be more important in Joseph's unfolding of Celestial marriage than anyone else has supposed. The modification of Eliza's journal, mentioned above, indicates Jonathan may have been the first widower promised reunion with his deceased wife. I lay out the reason I suspect Elvira Annie Cowles was Dr. Bennett's beloved, which involves Jonathan's role in being assigned to her as a pretend husband. Jonathan remained very close to Emma, being the only man who wasn't in a functional marriage she asked to help relocate Joseph's remains. For those who read D&C 132 as indicating Emma had been promised an alternate husband, Jonathan is the person who makes the most sense for such an alternate husband, as the William Law connection is anachronistic and comes from a source involved in Joseph's killing.

I enjoy sudoku. There are times when I am so tempted to insert a number, even though I haven't yet gotten to the point where that number is the only possibility. In a similar manner, the puzzle of Joseph Smith and plural marriage often lacks sufficient data to be certain he was (for example) a complete scoundrel. And yet people will elevate supposition to certainty, then proclaim that certainty with such vigor that it damages others.

It is clear Emma consistently requested that Joseph refrain from consummating plural marriages she had participated in solemnizing. I am merely postulating that her willingness to thwart the reproductive aspect of marriages extended to the initial possible marriage.

[Meg Stout]

I use the term (Strikers) that the editors of the Expositor put out there to describe the seducers. Striker is an archaic term for debaucher.

The information regarding the "Strikers" and Bennett is contained primarily in chapters 9 & 11. The proof is contained in the testimonies of women before the High Council, stuff that is likely locked deep in the bowels of the Church records, but which is available to researchers as part of the Val Avery collection (the call number is in the book - I was provided a PDF by another researcher, so these artifacts are well known by researchers such as Avery, Hales, Quinn, and Bradley). Once you become aware of the Strikers and Bennett's lies, it is possible to see it everywhere, including in the Autobiography of Orange Wight and the reluctance of women in the 1840s to even talk to Joseph. Emily Partridge refers to these beliefs in her tales of Nauvoo plural marriage.

I sometimes will use the example of the original cover for The Little Mermaid. How many of us (old enough to remember) had the video in our homes for months, never seeing the phallus the artist had drawn into the middle of the scenery? Sometimes you don't see a thing until it is pointed out. The illicit intercourse heresy is one of those things.

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

Hi ALarson,

Awesome!

Note that in the book I am not proclaiming that the Jonathan story is necessarily the right story. I am merely pointing out that this is an alternative that has been ignored.

With respect to Oliver Cowdery as officiant, Oliver had been at Joseph's side for so many other important matters. The officiant people presume is Levi Hancock, but Levi never claimed he'd been involved and Mosiah wasn't of an age to have know Levi would have officiated. As I recall, Todd Compton did a very nice job of pointing out the problems in assuming Mosiah's tale was right, while simultaneously indicating that there was enough to suggest Fanny's relationship with Joseph was more likely a marriage than an affair. Don Bradley's subsequent article on Fanny Alger is absolutely masterful.

With respect to Jonathan, he appears to be more important in Joseph's unfolding of Celestial marriage than anyone else has supposed. The modification of Eliza's journal, mentioned above, indicates Jonathan may have been the first widower promised reunion with his deceased wife. I lay out the reason I suspect Elvira Annie Cowles was Dr. Bennett's beloved, which involves Jonathan's role in being assigned to her as a pretend husband. Jonathan remained very close to Emma, being the only man who wasn't in a functional marriage she asked to help relocate Joseph's remains. For those who read D&C 132 as indicating Emma had been promised an alternate husband, Jonathan is the person who makes the most sense for such an alternate husband, as the William Law connection is anachronistic and comes from a source involved in Joseph's killing.

I enjoy sudoku. There are times when I am so tempted to insert a number, even though I haven't yet gotten to the point where that number is the only possibility. In a similar manner, the puzzle of Joseph Smith and plural marriage often lacks sufficient data to be certain he was (for example) a complete scoundrel. And yet people will elevate supposition to certainty, then proclaim that certainty with such vigor that it damages others.

It is clear Emma consistently requested that Joseph refrain from consummating plural marriages she had participated in solemnizing. I am merely postulating that her willingness to thwart the reproductive aspect of marriages extended to the initial possible marriage.

I just don't understand the 'Angel and the Sword' thing, how could HF say we have free agency and then send an angel down to smite JS for not living polygamy?  It doesn't compute to me.  I think Joseph lied to get his way, IMO.  

[thesometimesaint]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I just don't understand the 'Angel and the Sword' thing, how could HF say we have free agency and then send an angel down to smite JS for not living polygamy?  It doesn't compute to me.  I think Joseph lied to get his way, IMO.  

It is the job of Gods' and prophets to warn and forewarn of the consequences of not following the rules.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Meg Stout said:

I use the term (Strikers) that the editors of the Expositor put out there to describe the seducers.

Got it.  So you use the Expositor as evidence for your theory.  Do you also believe the rest of what was written in the Expositor or do you just pick and choose the parts that support your theories?

I really am not that interested in engaging more with you on here as I see so much that is incorrect and involves such faulty reasoning on your part that I really don't even know where to begin.  I respect your right to your beliefs and if the theories you've come up with help you keep the faith, you have a right to believe in them.

I will say that I feel your theories are insulting to the faithful wives and other women in Nauvoo.  You have referred to them as the "hapless women of Nauvoo" and I find that to be unfair and demeaning..  These women were intelligent and faithful.  Many of them chose to enter into a marriage with Joseph.  They later testified under oath regarding what type of marital relationship they had with Joseph.  They loved him and remained faithful to the church.

For your theories to be true, these women were not only "hapless", but they were liars too.  A lot of lies would have had to be told for your theories to be correct.  Lies told by good members of the church (men and women).

.

Edited June 19, 2016 by ALarson

[Meg Stout]

Hi ALarson,

I assert that you exaggerate the number of lies required for my hypotheses to be correct, which I believe are only the lies told by Dr. Bennett and those who sympathized with him.

I do not insist that Emily lied. I just assert it as a possibility that should be considered, given the time and place where she claimed to have been intimate with Joseph (i.e., expressly to save the Temple Lot, after decades of federal oppression over the matter of plural marriage). There is no problem if this marriage had been consummated, as it was done with the full involvement of Emma Smith in the biblical role of the wife selecting the husband's plural wife and participating in the ceremony. There are other cases where people reported information secondhand. So it was not so much that they were lying as that they weren't sufficiently conversant with the facts. To the OP topic, this is why I'm not bothered that Josephine is the biological child of Windsor Lyon, despite the number of folks who inferred Joseph Smith was her biological father based on guesses and supposition (fossilized into God's own truth as the years passed).

It seems you are the one willfully ignoring the 1842 testimonies. Out of curiosity, why do you think these women testified to participating in illicit intercourse, including such details as sleeping with the non-Mormon Sheriff and seeing the other women having sex with Dr. Bennett? These women were not the ones Joseph covenanted with, with the exception of Esther Dutcher Smith, who it appears was merely propositioned.

[Meg Stout]

Hi ALarson,

I forgot to address your implicit criticism that I cite the Expositor. I triage all data, including History of the Saints and the Expositor. This is why I am amused at the assertion that I am ignoring facts or would learn many things here of which I had previously been ignorant, as JulieM suggested.

I would be delighted to learn something new, as I love new information.

[readstoomuch]

12 hours ago, JulieM said:

Again I ask, what does Brodie write about Sylvia sessions, do you know?

Here is what Bushman states about Brodie and her book:

"In 2005, LDS scholar Richard Bushmanpublished a highly regarded biography of Smith entitled Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rollingwhich has frequently been compared to Brodie's work. In his book, Bushman noted that Brodie's 'biography was acknowledged by non-Mormon scholars as the premier study of Joseph Smith'and called Brodie 'the most eminent of Joseph Smith's unbelieving biographers.'Bushman wrote in 2007 that Brodie had 'shaped the view of the Prophet for half a century. Nothing we have written has challenged her domination. I had hoped my book would displace hers, but at best it will only be a contender in the ring, whereas before she reigned unchallenged.'"

i know there are errors in her book, but from what I've read about it, she got a lot right.  Considering that documents and sources weren't available to her that we now have, I've read she did a remarkable job.  

 

Brodie mentions Sylvia Sessions as a plural wife married to another man.  She does not talk about Josephine or imply that she was one of his children.  Sure Bushman respects that most non-believers/skeptics prefer her picture over his.  She really gets so many things wrong.  My daughter in law read Brodie`s book, but she won`t read any of the books that greatly qualify Brodie or contradict it.  My favorite little goodie I found was Joseph Smith giving a speech and then realizing it was actually from the testimony of an apostate during a trial in Missouri.  She takes part of the apostates testimony and then throws the words in Joseph`s mouth, with quotations nonetheless.  You would believe all of the vile things he supposedly said if you didn`t take the time to read the footnotes.  You also have to know what a horrible source Wilhelm Wyl was and it is probably her most common source in discussing Joseph`s polygamy.  

Please read Brodie if you are going to give it so much credit.  I can`t find a nice way to say this, other than it bothers me.  If you value what Bushman says, please read his book if you haven`t.  

[juliann]

9 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

 

I sometimes will use the example of the original cover for The Little Mermaid. How many of us (old enough to remember) had the video in our homes for months, never seeing the phallus the artist had drawn into the middle of the scenery? Sometimes you don't see a thing until it is pointed out. The illicit intercourse heresy is one of those things.

Or sometimes what you want to see isn't there at all and unsavory things are attributed to good people that they never did or even intended. . http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/mermaid.asp

Rumor, supposition, and innuendo are never a substitute for documentation.

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Or sometimes what you want to see isn't there at all and unsavory things are attributed to good people that they never did or even intended. . http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/mermaid.asp

Rumor, supposition, and innuendo are never a substitute for documentation.

Are you kidding, that what drives this board.

[Meg Stout]

Hi juliann,

How interesting that the public story about that cover is that it was just a spire. I usually respect snopes a lot, but I have to say on this one that there is no question that the spire is a rather detailed bit of anatomical depiction.

I liked a 2004 comment on this by EandCDad: "I believe everything on the snopes web site except the spire. It just looks to much like what people say.

I tend to agree. We have this video with the original cover. It's certainly possible that the artist is telling the truth and that he didn't intend to draw what he ended up drawing, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it looks exactly like what people are claiming. Basically, snopes is basing their "false" claim on the truthfullness of the guy who drew it. He could be telling the truth, but he might also have thought that saying "yeah, I drew a penis on a Disney poster" is not the best thing to do to get hired in the future. It seems that the parts that are clearly false was that it was a disgruntled Disney artist.I believe everything on the snopes web site except the spire. It just looks to much like what people say."

Back to the testimonies of the women in 1842. There is solid documentation for the illicit intercourse being taught by Dr. Bennett and his followers. Joseph Smith did his best to allow those who might have repented some time to repent, which is why the Higbee brothers were not exposed until 1844. Most of the others who were excommunicated you wouldn't have known had been excommunicated (for example, Windsor Lyon's excommunication is only "widely known" because Brian Hales made such a point of it in connection with his original argument that Sylvia was supposedly separated from Windsor during the window when Josephine was conceived).

So the Disney image is a matter of the artist saying "It was 4am and I was in a rush, and it's a complete accident that the spire looks like an exact (if golden and glittering) depiction of a phallus." Snopes takes the artist at his word.

In the case of Nauvoo, we have a rather detailed record from Catherine Laur Fuller Warren, who had nothing earthly to gain by giving the testimony she did. Catherine's testimony is corroborated by others.

I think where faithful folks take issue mainly is with my insistence on pointing out that the stories told by Eliza Snow, Brigham Young, and Heber Kimball regarding 1841 and 1842 don't make any sense unless one considers the possibility that they may have been temporarily misled by Dr. Bennett and his followers.

But isn't repentance a good thing? Are we so insistent on our heroes other than Joseph being perfect that we are willing to allow Joseph to be painted as an ultimate scoundrel, inventing polyandry us liaisons and measures to prevent procreation despite constant sex? Meanwhile, we will insist on casting aside solid data and testimony in order to maintain our comfortable worldview, where only Joseph was a scoundrel and everyone else was always pure and infallible.

It is this willingness on the part of the faithful to ignore data that permits others to stumble. I agree that the women and men involved in Nauvoo plural marriage were, for the most part, honorable and pure-minded people, willing to do whatever it took to obey God's commandments. Unfortunately, that honest credulity is part of what made some vulnerable to Bennett and his Strikers.

Getting back to the assertion juliann made, I have put forward documentation. From that documentation, I have made reasonable suppositions. In a thread titled "Joseph Smith's Polyandry," I assert that my documentation and reasonable conjecture is far more solid that the rumor, innuendo, and bald speculation that causes people to accuse Joseph Smith off polyandry.

Feel free to demonstrate to the contrary. However pithy sound bites without substance will not be regarded to be "demonstration."

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Meg Stout said:

 

Feel free to demonstrate to the contrary. However pithy sound bites without substance will not be regarded to be "demonstration."

Please answer ALarsen's questions. You need to support your theories.

[readstoomuch]

She's been working like the devil to answer his questions.  She has her book available for free.  Is it is asking too much for the spoon feeding to stop.

I used to assume the whole situation with Joseph Smith was going to turn out with the worst accusations being true.  I have found the opposite.  The sealing seemed to be so much more important than the sex.  Revealing the temple ordinances consumed most of his free time the last 18 mos of his life.  He seemed to know he was going to die.  

I think Meg is onto some new ideas and evidence that is very interesting.  The topic is typically a can of worms to take on.  There just isn't the absolute proof for any position. You read and weigh information and come back to it after it sits awhile.  I'm not Meg's long lost relative, but she has spunk and wants to take this subject on.  I give her big kudos.  She's got a job and probably kids to raise.  It must be exceedingly hard to give this attention.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have been absent from this thread for several days, so I don't know what has gone on here. I'm just returning now to post this link to a white paper from Ugo Perego regarding his findings about Josephine Lyon's parentage.

I have accessed it by way of Dan Peterson's blog.

Pardon me if it has already been posted. As I said, I've not been reading this thread for several days.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Meg Stout]

Hi juliann,

 

I believe I have answered ALarson's questions. He took his toys and went home, unwilling to engage someone who actually answered. As has been mentioned, my book is available for free, so you have no excuse for pretending you can't get access to it. Read chapters 9, 11, & 12. You can read more, but those are the chapters that discuss the illicit intercourse heresy and how Bennett devolved from valued colleague to leader of the vast network of seducers. If the text isn't sufficient, feel free to follow the footnotes, which I have used liberally. I took the liberty of citing the original source as well as the secondary source(s) where the original source is quoted, often with a url when the information is available online.

If you aren't interested in looking at my book, Joseph Smith had some of the women's testimonies published in the newspaper in 1844, when he was trying to make it clear that Francis and Chauncy Higbee were in the wrong.

If you live in Utah, I've given you enough specifics to be able to go to the university where the materials are housed so you can read the originals in the Val Avery collection directly. There is a PDF of the testimonies and the High Council record floating around amongst researchers, but while I'm grateful someone decided to send it to me, it isn't something I feel at liberty to post on the Internet.

Here is a section from the footnotes to Chapter 12:

4 Gary Bergera has written about the trial in his article, “ ‘Illicit Intercourse,’ Plural Marriage, and the Nauvoo Stake High Council, 1840-1844,” John Whitmer Historical Journal.
5 Women’s testimony as published in the May 29, 1844 issue of the Nauvoo Neighbor, online 18 Mar 2014 at http://boap.org/LDS/Nauvoo-Neighbor/1844/5-29-1844.pdf.
6 Records for James J. Miller, LZG8-Z5X, online 19 Mar 2014 at familysearch.org.
7 These two ladies were Mary Clift and Esther Smith. Esther Smith was likely Esther Dutcher [Smith]. Gustavus Hills, one of the Nauvoo Aldermen, had asked them for sex.
8 In the family story recorded by Rachel Neyman’s descendants, the children in the family when the Neymans left Pennsylvania in 1830 are listed as Margaret Jane [b. 1813], Cyrus Livingston [b. 1815], Annis [b. 1818], Hiram [b. 1819], Matilda, Mary Ann [b. 1822] and Jonathan [b. 1825]. This implies Matilda was born around 1820.
9 Women’s Women’s testimonies published in the Nauvoo Neighbor issue of May 29, 1844.
10 On May 17, 1842, Chauncey Higbee signed an affidavit affirming that Joseph Smith had never taught him about illicit intercourse, see The Nauvoo City Council and High Council Minutes, John S. Dinger editor, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 2011, p. 415
11 From the testimonies as published in 1844, it seems this “one” might have been either John C. Bennett or William Smith. Dinger in his edition of the Nauvoo High Council minutes asserts this referred to William Smith. See footnote 40, The Nauvoo City Council and High Council Minutes, John S. Dinger editor, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 2011, pp. 415- 416.
12 Women’s Women’s testimonies published in the Nauvoo Neighbor issue of May 29, 1844. 13 Smith, Andrew, Saintly Scoundrel.
14 Nauvoo Neighbor, May 29, 1844.
15 Catherine Fuller statement before the Nauvoo High Council, LDS Archives MS/d/2375/Box 8/fd. Nauvoo, copied and included in the Valeen T. Avery Papers USU_COLL MSS 316, Box 24, Fd 14, Special Collections and Archives, Utah State University Merrill-Cazier Library, Logan, Utah.4 Gary Bergera has written about the trial in his article, “ ‘Illicit Intercourse,’ Plural Marriage, and the Nauvoo Stake High Council, 1840-1844,” John Whitmer Historical Journal.

5 Women’s testimony as published in the May 29, 1844 issue of the Nauvoo Neighbor, online 18 Mar 2014 at http://boap.org/LDS/Nauvoo-Neighbor/1844/5-29-1844.pdf.
6 Records for James J. Miller, LZG8-Z5X, online 19 Mar 2014 at familysearch.org.
7 These two ladies were Mary Clift and Esther Smith. Esther Smith was likely Esther Dutcher [Smith]. Gustavus Hills, one of the Nauvoo Aldermen, had asked them for sex.
8 In the family story recorded by Rachel Neyman’s descendants, the children in the family when the Neymans left Pennsylvania in 1830 are listed as Margaret Jane [b. 1813], Cyrus Livingston [b. 1815], Annis [b. 1818], Hiram [b. 1819], Matilda, Mary Ann [b. 1822] and Jonathan [b. 1825]. This implies Matilda was born around 1820.
9 Women’s Women’s testimonies published in the Nauvoo Neighbor issue of May 29, 1844.
10 On May 17, 1842, Chauncey Higbee signed an affidavit affirming that Joseph Smith had never taught him about illicit intercourse, see The Nauvoo City Council and High Council Minutes, John S. Dinger editor, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 2011, p. 415
11 From the testimonies as published in 1844, it seems this “one” might have been either John C. Bennett or William Smith. Dinger in his edition of the Nauvoo High Council minutes asserts this referred to William Smith. See footnote 40, The Nauvoo City Council and High Council Minutes, John S. Dinger editor, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 2011, pp. 415- 416.
12 Women’s Women’s testimonies published in the Nauvoo Neighbor issue of May 29, 1844.

13 Smith, Andrew, Saintly Scoundrel.
14 Nauvoo Neighbor, May 29, 1844.
15 Catherine Fuller statement before the Nauvoo High Council, LDS Archives MS/d/2375/Box 8/fd. Nauvoo, copied and included in the Valeen T. Avery Papers USU_COLL MSS 316, Box 24, Fd 14, Special Collections and Archives, Utah State University Merrill-Cazier Library, Logan, Utah.

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

I believe I have answered ALarson's questions. He took his toys and went home, unwilling to engage someone who actually answered.

No, you have not answered my questions.  You have posted some rambling posts with bits and pieces of information, then pieced these together to form your theories and fictional accounts of what you believe could have happened or may have happened.  I expressed to you that you have every right to believe in these theories and if it helps you remain faithful, then that's fine too. .

I took my toys and went home?  This made me laugh.  Yeah, that's what happened 

I explained why I had no interest in getting into a back and forth discussion with you.  I was on here yesterday morning for a bit, but serve in a Bishopric and it was also Father's Day yesterday, so I spent the day with my family once my church duties were completed.  Coming back on here and reading more of your fictional theories was not a priority for me, believe it or not.

3 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

As has been mentioned, my book is available for free, so you have no excuse for pretending you can't get access to it.

Again, I'm going to pass on this.  If your book contains conclusions and theories such as this one about Fanny, Emma, and Oliver:

Quote

No one has considered another possible reason for Emma’s rage and Fanny’s stress. There was at least one eligible bachelor living in the Smith home during the sixteen months prior to Fanny’s departure from Kirtland, Jonathan Harriman Holmes. He was the same age as Joseph Smith. It seems reasonable that Jonathan could have fallen in love with Fanny. If Fanny asked Joseph for a release from their possibly unconsummated covenant marriage in order to marry another, an informed Emma might well rage. Similarly, Oliver Cowdery, the most obvious officiant at a plural marriage at that time, would have been outraged that a supposedly eternal union could be cast aside in a matter of mere weeks.

I asked you what evidence you have that Jonathan Harriman Holmes fell in love with Fanny.  You didn't answer that question just as you didn't answer most of the others I asked.

I also really do not like how you portray the women in Nauvoo or the wives of Joseph who testified.  Having to come up with crazy theories like your "passing a platter of turkey" between Emily Partridge and Joseph (for her meaning of "carnal intercourse") or believing the only alternative is that Emily was lying under oath, is insulting.  That's just one example of why I have no interest to debate you here.  

For you to even come up with this theory for what Emily meant, shows to me the lengths you're willing to go:

Quote

...Emily was by then 70 years old, and knew her way around the English language. Carnal refers to meat. Intercourse refers to commerce or trade (ever visited Intercourse, PA?). Therefore “carnal intercourse” would also be a legitimate description of passing Joseph a platter of turkey or chicken or mutton or beef at a meal, an activity the young Emily had almost certainly engaged in.

What evidence do you have that Emily "almost certainly" engaged in passing the meat platter back and forth with Joseph when she slept with him?

Hey, I'm glad you're here and it seems you have a few supporters.  You have every right to come here and express your views.  I hope you enjoy being on this board and that you learn from others.

.

Edited June 20, 2016 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

Meg, if you're still reading, have you listened to The Year of Polygamy with Lindsay Hansen Park?  

http://feministmormonhousewivespodcast.org/year-of-polygamy-episodes/

If only it was in book form.

[Meg Stout]

Hi Tacenda,

I tumbled across her series long after I'd written my series at M*. In the articles I looked at, I failed to see anything that was new, having read Bushman, Compton, Hales, and Bergera. It struck me that her conclusions were consistent with the pithy remix Alex Beam put together in American Crucifixion. In particular, I found that her treatment of my own ancestor (Elvira Annie Cowles) was lacking, and made a comment to that effect.

Hi ALarsen,

Glad to see you are still looking at the thread, even if you are unwilling to engage other than to cast aspersions. You seem to have formed your opinions based on sound bites others have put out regarding my work, with focus on the meat commerce comment coming from those reacting to an exMormon meme, whose author apologized to me, and others in the exMormon community reached out to apologize about. See, some of them are rather pleased to see someone actually talk about the full spectrum of behavior, rather than putting on rose colored glasses and parroting unalloyed hagiography. I do honor our pioneers, but it is in part because of the terrific hardships and attacks they overcame. As others have said, they do not feel that the possibility that some of these men and women were at some point touched by the evil makes them any less great. If anything, it makes them more heroic, for overcoming what could have been soul-crushing for lesser persons.

 

[ALarson]

55 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

Hi ALarson,

Glad to see you are still looking at the thread, even if you are unwilling to engage other than to cast aspersions. You seem to have formed your opinions based on sound bites others have put out regarding my work, with focus on the meat commerce comment coming from those reacting to an exMormon meme, 

I haven't seen any "exMormon meme", I posted a direct quote written by you about your meat commerce theory.

The other quote is a quote from your book (regarding Jonathan Harriman Holmes and Fanny).

So no, these are not "sound bites others have put out", but they are exact quotes from your written material.  I would hope that you'd be honest here and at least own what you have written (and not claim that these quotes came from "others").

Do you have answers to my questions from my post above (regarding evidence that Harriman fell in love with Fanny or that Emily passed the meat platter to Joseph when she slept with him)?

Meg, it seems to me you come up with some very bizarre theories and then combined with how you represent the women from back then, I really have no interest to pursue your theories and conclusions.  I simply cannot even seriously consider these theories (examples quoted above), for the most part (I'd imagine that you get some things right and I can tell you've spent a great deal of time on this topic).  Then when I ask specific questions about your theories (that I have quoted from you), it seems you really don't want to answer those questions but ramble off a bunch of other information.  That's why I wish you well, but don't see much point in spending a lot of time debating, etc.  I hope you understand.

.

Edited June 20, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

She's been working like the devil to answer his questions.  She has her book available for free.  Is it is asking too much for the spoon feeding to stop.

No one is asking to be spoon fed here.  

10 hours ago, readstoomuch said:

I think Meg is onto some new ideas and evidence that is very interesting.  The topic is typically a can of worms to take on.  There just isn't the absolute proof for any position. You read and weigh information and come back to it after it sits awhile.  I'm not Meg's long lost relative, but she has spunk and wants to take this subject on.  I give her big kudos.  She's got a job and probably kids to raise.  It must be exceedingly hard to give this attention.

Meg has put out some odd theories and conclusions (and also some downright bizarre ones too).  Of course I recognize that she's done reading and research.  She has also spent a lot of time writing up what some of her conclusions and theories are.

However, we have every right to ask Meg for evidence regarding her theories or to disagree with her conclusions.  She has the choice whether or not to answer these requests and so far, she hasn't addressed many of my questions (including those I've just asked again several times).

 

[Meg Stout]

Hi ALarson,

I'm intrigued by how you managed to zero in on the meat commerce comment amidst my hundreds of thousands of words. As I've said, I made that comment by way of suggesting an alternative to 1) a healthy young woman having sex and failing to conceive and 2) an older woman lying under oath. Remove the meat commerce sophistry, and we are back to the original two options. I don't have a problem with Emily and Joseph consummating a marriage Emma had sanctioned, but without biological progeny being produced by two healthy and provably fertile/virile individuals, sophistry was an option. I never claimed Emily passed Joseph a plate of meat while they were having sex, though that is what the exMormon memes depict.     What I was saying is that Emily, as a servant in the Smith household, was almost certainly involved in passing a platter of meat during dinner at some point or another.

With respect to Jonathan Holmes, he was a bachelor who had been living in the Smith household for roughly 16 months by the time Fanny felt a need to flee Kirtland and who would eventually marry in the Smith household. Subsequently Jonathan was living in the Smith household and apparently ended up as a pretend husband to Elvira Annie Cowles around the time three or four other women were pregnant without benefit of a cover husband. Jonathan was very terse in his own writings (journal entries were often single words. The encounter between the Mormon battalion and a stampede of longhorn bulls was documented by Jonathan as "trouble with cattle.")

I am not arguing that Jonathan necessarily proposed to Fanny Alger. I am merely pointing out that there are possibilities other than the presumed narrative that fit the data. If you grabbed that quote from my book, you would have possibly noticed that I don't deny the possibility that Fanny and Joseph could have consummated what Don Bradley and Compton argue was some sort of marriage. I am merely pushing back on the presumption that Emma was not aware of the marriage, which leads us back to why Emma would have reacted so strongly and why Joseph thought it would be "safe" to bring Oliver Cowdery into the discussion.

It also seems that you and I communicate using different rules. I am an engineer and scientist with a streak of autism running through my family. Therefore I tend to be rather precise about the multiple possibilities. I suspect you are what is termed neurologically typical, which means you are more strongly influenced by the prevailing theories expressed by your peers than by data. In many ways, that will tend to make you a better bishop than I could ever be (even if being a bishop were an option for me). On the other hand, it means that you would be unlikely to do anything other than criticize me until such point as a sufficient number of those you respect were to suggest that you should consider my overarching theses.

[juliann]

37 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

Hi ALarson,

I'm intrigued by how you managed to zero in on the meat commerce comment amidst my hundreds of thousands of words.  

It is representative of your work and a very good example of why your conclusions are so very problematic. I share AL's concerns down to the last word. You are unlikely to get people willing to debate you because you merely flip from one topic to another without responding to the troublesome items brought to your attention as just happened with this example.

There is not one scholar with respected credentials in the field you have entered that endorses your methodology or theories that I am aware of.  I am very impressed with your skill and knowledge but I wish you would not use it to demean Mormon women with intrusive and, quite frankly, tasteless speculation. 

[juliann]

On 6/18/2016 at 10:25 PM, Meg Stout said:

 

  There was discussion of various methods of birth control. The rhythm method wasn't understood until the 1920s. No one has mentioned that during Joseph's lifetime it was believed that excessive marital intercourse could cause cholera, so even when a fellow was legally married to a woman, most normal people tended to keep sexual activity focused on procreation. That is why, for example, there was a minor flap in the early 1980s when Exponent II published an article talking about how it is OK to actually have sex with your spouse for purposes other than creating a child. Onanism and frottage are options that were known at the time, and since we know Bennett and Gustavus Hills talked about medicine, it seems folks were using some sort of medical abortifacient. If this was occurring, I suspect they were using Queen Anne's Lace, as this would have been readily available and relatively unlikely to kill someone. Remember that birth control at that time was considered highly scandalous, as seen by how frequently and harshly Charles Knowlton was punished for his little sex manual for young married people.

 

What I consistently see is a very selective use of information. An appeal to footnotes is irrelevant unless more than one narrow view is being cited at the expense of the consensus point of view.  I went directly to my bookshelf to a credible book (Harvard Press,) Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation by Nancy Cott. I'm not going to take the time to fully reference or quote because this same information isn't hard to find online. On p126, Cott discusses the availability of abortions, abortifacients and contraceptive methods that led many states to make abortion a crime between 1830 and 1870. In other words, this is a much more complex and expansive issue than Meg allows.

I also have to wonder if you are confusing the meaning of "intercourse" in JS's time. Human intercourse would mean mingling with other people not sexual relations when it comes to cholera. They were aware of contagion. 

Also, as an FYI, it is not appropriate to tell people to go read a book rather than respond to a specific point on this board (the first link in the folder should be to board rules.) We also have a "call for documentation" (CFR) to prevent pages of repeated and unanswered requests (again, "go read...." is not an answer ;-))

Edited June 20, 2016 by juliann

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Meg Stout said:

 

It also seems that you and I communicate using different rules. I am an engineer and scientist with a streak of autism running through my family. Therefore I tend to be rather precise about the multiple possibilities. I suspect you are what is termed neurologically typical, which means you are more strongly influenced by the prevailing theories expressed by your peers than by data.  

Please don't turn this into a personal discussion. The only rules that are relevant apply to standard methodology. Maybe those rules will change one day but for now they do not include guesswork at the expensive of what is supportable given the existing documentation. I also object to guesswork by more prominent names in the study of polygamy, BTW. I do not think there is enough support to conclude there was no "real" polyandry.