Joseph Smith's Polyandry?

[Meg Stout]

Hi juliann,

Greg Prince gave me a cover quote:

"Reluctant Polygamist asks the reader to accept the complexity and ambiguity of LDS plural marriage, rather than going for a simplistic explanation. I think that's a real service."

The review of Reluctant Polygamist over at millennialstar.org was posted by a historian. While he disagreed with my hypotheses regarding Eliza and Brigham, he was not inclined to toss out the rest merely because he disagreed with me on a couple of points.

The discussion of Knowlton and contagion is to remind moderns that, while folks knew about medical implements to artificially terminate pregnancy, they did not understand bacterial infection. Even such advanced medical luminaries as Florence Nightingale did not believe in people becoming sick because of contact with other sick people (contagion). Destiny of the Republic describes the tragedy that leading medical personnel didn't understand that sticking an I washing finger into the President's back after he was shot was a bad idea. It was Dr. Bliss' finger that killed James Garfield, not the bullet shot by the would-be assassin.

So while abortion was known, it was not the relatively safe procedure moderns think of in our day.

When I was reading the rules, it occurred to me that several of the comments made about me appeared to have crossed the line of appropriate behavior. Yet these comments were not policed. I suggest that categorically demeaning and belittling an individual is perhaps more objectionable than providing someone a free book and suggesting they might benefit from partaking of the information therein.

[Meg Stout]

Wow, autocorrect is more aggressive at this board than I am used to.

It was Dr. Bliss sticking his unwashed finger into James Garfield's back after the assassin's bullet struck that lead to President Garfield's eventual death of septicemia. That appears to be the source of the phrase "ignorance is Bliss..."

[Raingirl]

39 minutes ago, juliann said:

 

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 ;-))

This. Times a thousand.

It puts me in mind of slimey "authors" who - rather than answering questions in an interview in which they freely agreed to participate - just keep repeating "read my book".  It makes me wonder about a number of things, including their ability to respond to straightforward questions without cheat-sheets.

[JulieM]

42 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

When I was reading the rules, it occurred to me that several of the comments made about me appeared to have crossed the line of appropriate behavior. Yet these comments were not policed. I suggest that categorically demeaning and belittling an individual is perhaps more objectionable than providing someone a free book and suggesting they might benefit from partaking of the information therein.

I haven't seen anyone demean or belittle you, Meg. Many disagree with you about your conclusions or probable versions of history and that is allowed here. Just no personal attacks should be posted.  

Edited June 20, 2016 by JulieM

[juliann]

52 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

 

The discussion of Knowlton and contagion is to remind moderns that, while folks knew about medical implements to artificially terminate pregnancy, they did not understand bacterial infection. Even such advanced medical luminaries as Florence Nightingale did not believe in people becoming sick because of contact with other sick people (contagion). Destiny of the Republic describes the tragedy that leading medical personnel didn't understand that sticking an I washing finger into the President's back after he was shot was a bad idea. It was Dr. Bliss' finger that killed James Garfield, not the bullet shot by the would-be assassin.

So while abortion was known, it was not the relatively safe procedure moderns think of in our day.

 

This is not responsive to my comment or to your original claim. Please don't move the goal posts. Contagion is not synonymous with bacterial infection and irrelevant to the topic.  

1. You claimed people thought "excessive" [sexual]  intercourse caused cholera. You have likely taken human intercourse to mean sexual intercourse.

2. You made specific claims about what birth control methods were known in "JS's time"  or used. You then jump from decades through centuries to unrelated incidents or names.  

What I am demonstrating is that you are likely in error on any number of preliminary points. That is why it is legitimate to question your conclusions after relying on questionable or simplistic information to describe an exceptionally complex topic. I don't intend this to sound curt but I am trying to keep this centered on one point at a time. Otherwise discussions veer into what we call "rabbit holes." 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2016 by juliann

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Meg Stout said:

When I was reading the rules, it occurred to me that several of the comments made about me appeared to have crossed the line of appropriate behavior. Yet these comments were not policed. I suggest that categorically demeaning and belittling an individual is perhaps more objectionable than providing someone a free book and suggesting they might benefit from partaking of the information therein.

In my opinion, you are demeaning our Mormon ancestors with intrusive sexual innuendo if you are referring to my comment ....which I think was quite clear.  That has nothing to do with anyone here. Nor does it relate in any way to the board rules http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66537-board-guidelines-update-please-review-before-posting/  I notice that there is a specific prohibition against sexually themed threads but this one seems to be limping along.  I may not speak for everyone but it is usually considered poor form to refer people to links or books to avoid answering specific questions raised by a specific claim made on the board which we all call "CFR". (but it does say.....  provide appropriate references to support your statements ) Read my book isn't a reference. If you have a complaint about the behavior of any poster there is a report post function at the top of the box. Hope that helps!

 

[Meg Stout]

Hi JulieM,

I was called a quack and juliann (I believe) claimed she was horrified by my original post regarding Eliza Snow, where I hypothesized that she'd modified her poem Conjugal. She did not note that the poem was, in fact, substantially modified (if not in the particular way I had hypothesized). There have been other unflattering claims in this thread regarding me.

That is part of why I posted an introduction. I figured if people are going to call me a quack and other things they could do so to my face.

Hi juliann,

1. It was specifically the belief that cholera was caused by excess sexual intercourse within marriage that was cited in the newspaper clipping (New York Times, I believe) where I first learned about this interesting historical tidbit. Unfortunately, that clipping didn't retain all its references, and when I was next in the local family history center, someone had tidied up. The source I was able to find that touched on the history of cholera and beliefs regarding its cause were not as explicit regarding excessive married sex, but did call out intemperance amongst the Irish. A set of images from 2008 discusses the 1832 cholera epidemic, specifying that it was believed sufferers had brought the disease upon themselves as a result of immorality (http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/04/15/science/20080415_CHOLERA_SLIDESHOW_index-2.html) Regardless of the belief regarding cholera, it is undeniable that it was a cultural habit among some Mormons to restrict married sexuality to procreation, as evidenced by the 1970s Stake Conference I cite and the 1980s-era article on the topic in Exponent II.

2. I am looking at the lack of children and then evaluating the possible causes for a lack of children.

1st is a lack of sex. The possibility that Joseph and those he taught could have been refraining from sex more often than not prior to Joseph's death is widely derided by those who prefer to ballyhoo Joseph's supposedly libidinous and depraved coercion.

2nd is that conceived children were being aborted, as claimed by Sarah Bates Pratt (reported by Wyl in Mormon Portraits). With respect to the claim that abortion was the cause of no children, the topic of contagion is entirely germane, as abortive surgery (often cited as a reason for lack of progeny from Nauvoo-era polygamists) would have caused far more death than moderns might be expecting. Dr. Bennett and others would likely not have cleaned their instruments and certainly would not have sanitized them.

3rd is effective contraception. There were methods of achieving contraception, but these were considered highly illegal at the time. As discussed with respect to Knowlton's little book, the mere publication of information about contraception was illegal and heavily punished. We do see mention of medicine by Catherine Laur Fuller Warren and in the case of the illicit interaction between Mary Clift and Gustavus Hills.  And yet in the case of Mary Clift, a single interaction (despite medicine) resulted in pregnancy. Meanwhile there is no mention of attempts to engage in sex and prohibit conception on the part of any of the women with respect to their marriages to either Joseph Smith or the men known to be legitimately participating in the plural marriage doctrine taught by Joseph Smith. (I submit that the case of Mary Heron is not conclusively describing an interaction with Joseph Smith.) The only discussions we have is sorrow that conditions were not right, supposedly on the part of the woman.

While it is possible that Joseph was having coercive sex with all the willing women of Nauvoo and beyond, there is no biological product. Modern explanations for why there has been no biological product fail to consider the realities of the early 19th century. Further, it wasn't just Joseph who was under-producing progeny in plural marriages during those early years. Gary Bergera touched on this in his analysis of the earliest Mormon polygamists, published in Dialogue about ten years ago. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V38N03_13.pdf

Getting back to the presumption that Joseph engaged in polyandrous sexual liaisons with the several women with whom he covenanted who had legal husbands, there is nothing beyond rumor and innuendo to support that these liaisons occurred. With definitive resolution that Josephine couldn't have been produced by sexual interaction between Sylvia and Joseph, the best hope is for someone to prove that Joseph Albert Smith was Joseph Smith's biological son, as Esther Dutcher Smith was married to Albert Smith when she conceived her son in 1844, at a time she would later claim to have been in a covenant relationship with Joseph Smith.

[JulieM]

33 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

I was called a quack

CFR

(These you have to respond to with an exact quote and reference to the person who called you a "quack".  This means call for reference.)

Maybe somebody used that word to describe you, but I missed it if they did (and that is personal).

Please supply the quote or withdraw the accusation.

Edited June 20, 2016 by JulieM

[Eek!]

On ‎6‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 0:25 AM, Meg Stout said:

Meg Stout here...

As mentioned, I made the decision to make my book available for free:

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

Hi Meg,

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this thread, and for making your book available in .pdf form.  I appreciate this very much, as Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage is a topic that interests me quite a bit, but right now my finances are too tight for me to justify spending money on something that I don't "need".  When that changes, I will buy a hard copy of your book as a thank-you. 

I have downloaded your book and look forward to reading it.  I'm open to having my paradigms shifted, as I'm more interested the truth than in defending my current pet theory on the subject. 

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

 With definitive resolution that Josephine couldn't have been produced by sexual interaction between Sylvia and Joseph...

There is no definitive resolution that Josephine couldn't have been the biological child of Joseph (the result does not eliminate the possibility that Joseph had physical relations with Sylvia during the time period Josephine was conceived).  The definitive resolution is limited to that she wasn't.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Meg Stout said:

Hi JulieM,

I was called a quack and juliann (I believe) claimed she was horrified by my original post regarding Eliza Snow, where I hypothesized that she'd modified her poem Conjugal. She did not note that the poem was, in fact, substantially modified (if not in the particular way I had hypothesized). There have been other unflattering claims in this thread regarding me.

 

I am trying to be as reasonable as possible but this defies explanation. The particular way you hypothesize is at issue. Nothing else. It would be so much easier if you would stick to the point. It is hard not to take disagreement with your work personally but in this forum, people will say unflattering things about your work because it is, as you well know, very controversial and disputed by all polygamy experts (meaning they have written books and such on that topic alone.) 

 

Quote

1. It was specifically the belief that cholera was caused by excess sexual intercourse within marriage that was cited in the newspaper clipping (New York Times, I believe) where I first learned about this interesting historical tidbit. Unfortunately, that clipping didn't retain all its references, and when I was next in the local family history center, someone had tidied up. The source I was able to find that touched on the history of cholera and beliefs regarding its cause were not as explicit regarding excessive married sex, but did call out intemperance amongst the Irish. A set of images from 2008 discusses the 1832 cholera epidemic, specifying that it was believed sufferers had brought the disease upon themselves as a result of immorality (http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/04/15/science/20080415_CHOLERA_SLIDESHOW_index-2.html) Regardless of the belief regarding cholera, it is undeniable that it was a cultural habit among some Mormons to restrict married sexuality to procreation, as evidenced by the 1970s Stake Conference I cite and the 1980s-era article on the topic in Exponent II.

In other words, you have absolutely nothing to back up a claim that anybody thought excessive cholera aside from something you remember reading that you can't find. This is the methodology that is questionable. You are now trying to bring in another topic, immorality, I assume to avoid having to address this failing. Please stop quoting 20th century publications as if what happened in our time has anything to do with their time. It is irrelevant.

And of course the Victorian era thought sex was for procreation only but that again has nothing to do with your claim that those of that era thought "excessive" (which you don't define) sex caused cholera. Again, you have likely confused the very common usage of human intercourse when speaking of cholera in that era with sexual intercourse. 

 

Quote

Getting back to the presumption that Joseph engaged in polyandrous sexual liaisons with the several women with whom he covenanted who had legal husbands, there is nothing beyond rumor and innuendo to support that these liaisons occurred. With definitive resolution that Josephine couldn't have been produced by sexual interaction between Sylvia and Joseph, the best hope is for someone to prove that Joseph Albert Smith was Joseph Smith's biological son, as Esther Dutcher Smith was married to Albert Smith when she conceived her son in 1844, at a time she would later claim to have been in a covenant relationship with Joseph Smith.

There is nothing but rumor and innuendo to support anything that goes on in the bedroom, Meg. And it is tasteless and demeaning to these women no matter who it comes from. They were married, we should be assuming all that implies, as we do in any other  polygamous situation that we do not pry into. Sylvia evidently thought Joseph to be the father. End of story.

[webbles]

53 minutes ago, JulieM said:

CFR

(These you have to respond to with an exact quote and reference to the person who called you a "quack".  This means call for reference.)

Maybe somebody used that word to describe you, but I missed it if they did (and that is personal).

Please supply the quote or withdraw the accusation.

I can fulfill that CFR.  The search was really easy.

The quack part is

Quote

And it took about 5 minutes after meeting Meg Stout for me to decide she was a quack as far as history was concerned.

 

[Meg Stout]

Hi Calm,

I never said it was impossible that Joseph had sex with Josephine. But the sperm that fertilized the egg Sylvia had produced that month came from Windsor, rather than Joseph.

One can imagine Joseph was having sex with Sylvia, but one is left without even the faint hope of physical proof some believed in a week ago.

 

[Meg Stout]

On June 12, 2016 at 9:24 PM, JLHPROF said:

I was in attendance.  I believe Sylvia had relations with Joseph and that's why she made the statement she did to Josephine.

Simple as that.
 

And it took about 5 minutes after meeting Meg Stout for me to decide she was a quack as far as history was concerned.

He'd have spun it.  He's very good at that.

Here is the quack comment. QED

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

One can imagine Joseph was having sex with Sylvia, but one is left without even the faint hope of physical proof some believed in a week ago.

I fail to see why any of this matters, other than for morbid curiosity.

Joseph had plural wives.  Joseph had relations with some (but probably not all) of these plural wives.  None of these plural relations produced a child as far as can be determined.  A few of these plural wives had civil husbands.

Why does any other detail of his sex life matter?
Answer - it doesn't, unless someone cannot accept Joseph having relations with one of his wives.  Which seems a downright silly concern.  Why does it matter if a husband has relations with a wife?

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Meg Stout said:

Here is the quack comment. QED

My apologies.
But a few of your comments at the MHA seemed more concerned with your perspectives than with historical fact.

But I withdraw the insulting comment.  I should know better.

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

Here is the quack comment. QED

Yeah, that's personal and JLHPROF has apologized.  I didn't go back that far in this thread as I thought you meant someone called you that after you began participating here.  Thanks for providing the quote (and to you too, webbles)!

 

Edited June 20, 2016 by JulieM

[Meg Stout]

JLHPROF was apparently within earshot when I clarified that I prefer to use the term "women who covenanted with Joseph" rather than "Joseph's wives." This from an earlier comment by JLHPROF in this thread that also referred to someone smiling like a Cheshire Cat over the DNA results.

Actually, my reception here has been love and kisses compared to being harangued by Red Davis back in the old mormon-l days, or arguing the ethics of abortion with Bob Woolley or any of a range of topics with Perry L Porter. Though other than Red Davis, they all gathered around to support me when my son died in 1994.

i expect some day we will similarly consider each other similarly dear, even if that day is in another realm.

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

My apologies.
But a few of your comments at the MHA seemed more concerned with your perspectives than with historical fact.

But I withdraw the insulting comment.  I should know better.

Nice to know you're human!

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

JLHPROF was apparently within earshot when I clarified that I prefer to use the term "women who covenanted with Joseph" rather than "Joseph's wives." This from an earlier comment by JLHPROF in this thread that also referred to someone smiling like a Cheshire Cat over the DNA results.

Actually, my reception here has been love and kisses compared to being harangued by Red Davis back in the old mormon-l days, or arguing the ethics of abortion with Bob Woolley or any of a range of topics with Perry L Porter. Though other than Red Davis, they all gathered around to support me when my son died in 1994.

i expect some day we will similarly consider each other similarly dear, even if that day is in another realm.

Meg, people here (for the most part) hold your feet to the fire and do not let you get away with making assumptions where there is no evidence to back them up.  Then when you continue and come up with fictional stories or history based on those faulty or weak assumptions and present them as fact, it is going way too far (and you'll be called out on that here too).  You may get away with doing this on your blog, but not here. You'll get asked to supply references (which you should be able to do).  

You are very welcome here, but I do feel that it is you who will be taught rather than being the teacher (just my opinion so far).  Your participation will be great, but try to stay focused rather than using the shotgun approach or making definite claims that have no documentation behind them.  I feel that you really have researched a lot and have a great deal to add to this discussion, but your past writings and theories are quite a hindrance to you.   Just my 2 cents (and it's probably worth even less  )

.

Edited June 20, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

JLHPROF was apparently within earshot when I clarified that I prefer to use the term "women who covenanted with Joseph" rather than "Joseph's wives." This from an earlier comment by JLHPROF in this thread that also referred to someone smiling like a Cheshire Cat over the DNA results.

I was within earshot for your comment.
I remember (and correct me if I am wrong) something about calling them "covenant companions", but perhaps it was "women who covenanted with Joseph".
However, either way, they were wives.  There are only two sealing ceremonies in all of Mormonism (with one notable exception).
In one you are pronounced heirs.  In the other you are pronounced husband and wife.
These women that were sealed to Joseph were not his heirs.  Therefore, they were his wives.

And the Cheshire Cat was not you, but a certain academic who has fought to find every possible way to preclude Joseph from having relations with his plural wives and will only admit to the possibility when unable to prove the negative.

Edited June 20, 2016 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Nice to know you're human!

I am.  But only sometimes. 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Meg Stout said:

JLHPROF was apparently within earshot when I clarified that I prefer to use the term "women who covenanted with Joseph" rather than "Joseph's wives." 

Why?  They were Joseph's plural wives.  

Do you also call Brigham Young's plural wives the "women who covenanted with Brigham"?  If not, why do this with Joseph?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meg Stout said:

Hi Calm,

I never said it was impossible that Joseph had sex with Josephine. But the sperm that fertilized the egg Sylvia had produced that month came from Windsor, rather than Joseph.

One can imagine Joseph was having sex with Sylvia, but one is left without even the faint hope of physical proof some believed in a week ago.

 

Yes, I recognized amd more or less said the same thing.  I was just pointing out a lack of precision in what you were saying, English being the language that it is with all its very important nuances.  Precision in description is very important in this subject, which iirc you yourself observed in an earlier post, though I suspect we are defining precision in different ways because I see your use of speculation here as contributing more to imprecision than precision in description and discussion I am afraid.

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Do you also call Brigham Young's plural wives the "women who covenanted with Brigham"?  If not, why do this with Joseph?

The same reason people will accept that Christ was baptized to follow the law (because he said so) but can't accept that he had any need to receive the priesthood, be endowed, or marry for eternity.
We like our most esteemed leaders to be exceptions to the rules, better than the mere mortals.  When the opposite is true.  They are who they are because they followed EVERY law placed before them.