Joseph Smith's Polyandry?

[Calm]

Using the Prices' work to support her claim that Snow was seduced by Bennett appears to me to violate several of her own posted standards of scholarship:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67690-joseph-smiths-polyandry/?do=findComment&comment=1209634882

"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"

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

One month before he died, Joseph the Prophet proclaimed to thousands of Saints gathered for worship on Sunday May 26, 1844, that he was not a polygamist. He declared, "What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one" (LDS History of the Church 6:411). Also, the fact that Emma did not push Eliza down the Mansion House stairs (see chapter 9) is proof that the LDS Church's "tradition" that Joseph was the father, is false. Who then was the father? Dr. Wyl's book, from which LDS writers have often quoted in their efforts to prove that Joseph was a polygamist, implies that Bennett seduced Eliza—he could have been the father."

I'm not surprised the Prices would adopt Wyl's smear of Eliza Snow. Thanks for finding this. 

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, juliann said:

Mormon Enigma contains a fair amount of mind reading. But it does a rare thing, it approaches polygamy from the viewpoint of a....woman!

I'm excited, written by women about a woman, so cool.  I'm sure I will learn a lot from the POV and writing style alone.  

[Calm]

The Prices seem to take great delight in muddying the name of one of the most respected women in LDS history.  It is rather shocking, but I suppose necessary for them in order to discredit the entire practice of plural marriage.  There seems little reason for someone who accepts that Joseph did practice it to latch on so eagerly to their shoddy work and promotion of what amounted to, imo, gossip.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

The Prices seem to take great delight in muddying the name of one of the most respected women in LDS history.  It is rather shocking, but I suppose necessary for them in order to discredit the entire practice of plural marriage.  There seems little reason for someone who accepts that Joseph did practice it to latch on so eagerly to their shoddy work and promotion of what amounted to, imo, gossip.

Brigham said bad things that weren't so true about Emma.

Apparently saying bad things that weren't so true about Eliza the matriarch of Utah Mormons is just retaliation instead of history.
 

Edited June 24, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

Yeah, I am hoping Brigham has offered a major apology to Emma and maybe sent flowers (or the paradisical equivalent) for a number of decades to show his remorse.

[Meg Stout]

6 hours ago, juliann said:

You do not seem to understand that the burden of proof is yours. From the little we are seeing here, you are unable to do that. You do not even respond to direct requests to provide documentation of specific claims when they have been shown to be inaccurate. You need to do that.

As a researcher, how can you not know this?  

I usually use the Immigration books at my local Family History Center. They don't include passenger lists, so I have had to go find those in other locations when I cared that much about someone's immigration.

Given that everyone else has apparently had this tool at their finger tips, why hasn't it been widely known that Brigham Young attempted to persuade Martha Brotherton of an extra-monogamous relationship in early December?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Meg Stout said:

I usually use the Immigration books at my local Family History Center. They don't include passenger lists, so I have had to go find those in other locations when I cared that much about someone's immigration.

Given that everyone else has apparently had this tool at their finger tips, why hasn't it been widely known that Brigham Young attempted to persuade Martha Brotherton of an extra-monogamous relationship in early December?

Yes, that is well-known. Why did you think we didn't know about it?

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

What evidence is there to "consider" these children to "have likely been engendered by Strikers"? None, whatsoever. But back to the OP, I note again that the only evidence regarding Joseph practicing sexual polyandry is positive, albeit not conclusive, but there is no positive evidence for nonsexual polyandry--in other words, there is no evidence pointing to his marriages not having been sexual. 

 

John,

   Aren't you maybe doing a bit like the things you are accusing Meg of here? What evidence is there to conclude that any of the so called polyandrous sealings that Joseph engaged in had a sexual component. The closest thing that had been considered evidence was the Josephine Lyon affidavit. Since the DNA tests have pretty much proven that Josephine is not the biological daughter of Joseph Smith, there is absolutely no evidence that any of those "polyandrous" sealings had a sexual component. I have stated my beliefs concerning the Sylvia Lyons deathbed statement and have provided information that backs up that belief i.e. that Sylvia was sealed to Joseph twice, once during the time that Windsoe Lyon was excommunicated from the church, and once again, by proxy, after Joseph's death. I do not state it as conclusive evidence of no sex. There is no way that  anyone can prove that Joseph Smith did not have sex with any of the women that he was sealed to (or women that he was not sealed too either). Proving a negative is impossible.

   There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that Joseph engaged in conjugal relations with some of his plural wives, but none concerning the the "polyandrous" sealings.

Glenn

[Meg Stout]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks Meg, 

I had heard of the JST connection, but I wasn't aware that Erastus Snow was the source, very interesting, but a very late recollection and I have a hard time accepting that as strong evidence for 1831.  Personally, I don't see anything in Joseph's theological teachings in the 1830s that connect these dots for an 1831 revelation on polygamy.   

Hi hope_for_things,

It isn't conclusive, but I thought it was interesting that when Joseph Smith "answered the questions which were frequently asked me," he said this regarding marriage:

"Seventh--"Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one?"

"No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again. But we do disapprove of the custom, which as gained in the world, and has been practiced among us, to our great mortification, in marrying in five or six weeks, or even in two or three months, after the death of their companion. We believe that due respect ought to be had to the memory of the dead, and the feelings of both friends and children."

from History of the Church, Vol.3, Ch.3, p.28-30, cited at http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/colton/personal/lds/smithfaq.htm

[Meg Stout]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote, not paraphase please.

From Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, p. 608"

"Strangely enough, according to Arnold family traditions, the marriage was arranged by Kimball himself. A note on a family group sheet tells us: 'Nancy Mariah Winchester was sealed to the Prophet on 3 Feb 1846 in the Nauvoo Temple and married to Heber C. Kimball for life, but she never lived with Mr. Kimball as his wife and he asked Amost George Arnold to marry her so she could become a mother and promised him that he would later have the opportunity of marrying a younger wife.'"

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Glenn101 said:

John,

   Aren't you maybe doing a bit like the things you are accusing Meg of here? What evidence is there to conclude that any of the so called polyandrous sealings that Joseph engaged in had a sexual component. The closest thing that had been considered evidence was the Josephine Lyon affidavit. Since the DNA tests have pretty much proven that Josephine is not the biological daughter of Joseph Smith, there is absolutely no evidence that any of those "polyandrous" sealings had a sexual component. I have stated my beliefs concerning the Sylvia Lyons deathbed statement and have provided information that backs up that belief i.e. that Sylvia was sealed to Joseph twice, once during the time that Windsoe Lyon was excommunicated from the church, and once again, by proxy, after Joseph's death. I do not state it as conclusive evidence of no sex. There is no way that  anyone can prove that Joseph Smith did not have sex with any of the women that he was sealed to (or women that he was not sealed too either). Proving a negative is impossible.

   There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that Joseph engaged in conjugal relations with some of his plural wives, but none concerning the the "polyandrous" sealings.

Glenn

No, I'm not doing the same thing. I readily acknowledge there is no conclusive evidence for sexual polyandry. As I said, the only testimony (Sylvia's being one example) at least hints at a sexual component, whereas there is no evidence of any kind affirming nonsexual polyandry. 

In short, there's very little evidence, and none of it is conclusive. 

[Meg Stout]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Sounds like the Expositor is using this term Strikers to refer specifically to brother Joseph and his followers, and not to Bennett at all.  Funny how the evidence shows the opposite of what was stated earlier.  

Hi hope_for_things,

I used the term Strikers for the debauchers who participated in Bennett's illicit intercourse heresy. I got the the term from the Expositor, and it turns out it is merely an archaic term for debaucher. I never claimed the Expositor was the source of my information other than the word.

[Meg Stout]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Mormon Enigma contains a fair amount of mind reading. But it does a rare thing, it approaches polygamy from the viewpoint of a....woman!

Am I not a woman?

[Meg Stout]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yes, that is well-known. Why did you think we didn't know about it?

It has not been well known that it occurred in early December.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

It has not been well known that it occurred in early December.

Martha arrived in Nauvoo in November, and she said the proposal took place some three weeks later. Not sure why you think we wouldn't have known that.  

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

It has not been well known that it occurred in early December.

I believe it is well known (I was aware of it).

Is this significant for some reason?  Do you believe Brigham Young was one of Bennett's Strikers?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, JulieM said:

I believe it is well known (I was aware of it).

Is this significant for some reason?  Do you believe Brigham Young was one of Bennett's Strikers?

The Prices seem to think he was. 

[Glenn101]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No, I'm not doing the same thing. I readily acknowledge there is no conclusive evidence for sexual polyandry. As I said, the only testimony (Sylvia's being one example) at least hints at a sexual component, whereas there is no evidence of any kind affirming nonsexual polyandry. 

In short, there's very little evidence, and none of it is conclusive. 

John,

    As I noted, one cannot prove a negative. I have pointed out several problems for imagining a sexual component in the Sylvia Lyon sealing. No one has really addressed that so far.

   What other evidence do you have? 

Glenn

 

[juliann]

40 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

 

Given that everyone else has apparently had this tool at their finger tips, why hasn't it been widely known that Brigham Young attempted to persuade Martha Brotherton of an extra-monogamous relationship in early December?

 This illustrates why you are getting so many objections to your methodology. You have no basis to assume this well known event isn't....well known. Especially by this group who have been providing you documentation of your errors at every turn. There is a search function on this board and you could have seen within seconds that Martha Brotherton was discussed as early as 2005.

Quote

It has not been well known that it occurred in early December.

Now that is just silly. You seem to have a hard time admitting when you are demonstrably wrong.

Quote

Am I not a woman?

You are not one of the Nauvoo women who lived through this. Mormon Enigma is written though the viewpoint of Emma rather than the men.

Edited June 24, 2016 by juliann

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

John,

    As I noted, one cannot prove a negative. I have pointed out several problems for imagining a sexual component in the Sylvia Lyon sealing. No one has really addressed that so far.

   What other evidence do you have? 

Glenn

 

https://runtu.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/joseph-smith-and-sexual-polyandry/

ETA: I am not saying any of this is conclusive. My point, as I said, is that there is no evidence affirming nonsexual polyandry. 

Edited June 24, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

. But we do disapprove of the custom, which as gained in the world, and has been practiced among us, to our great mortification, in marrying in five or six weeks, or even in two or three months, after the death of their companion. We believe that due respect ought to be had to the memory of the dead, and the feelings of both friends and children."

from History of the Church, Vol.3, Ch.3, p.28-30, cited at http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/colton/personal/lds/smithfaq.htm

And yet when his brother's wife, Jerusha, died in Oct 1837, Joseph urged Hyrum to remarry and picked out Mary Fielding.  They were married that December 24th, according to wiki.

https://religion.byu.edu/news/hyrum-smith-papers

"The Hyrum Smith biography is quite insightful into the character of Hyrum Smith. He was very dutiful in all that he was asked to do. He served several missions. In October 1837, Joseph called him to serve a mission in the eastern states. At the time, Jerusha, Hyrum’s wife, was two weeks away from delivering their child, but he still went on his mission. He asked his younger brother Don Carlos to care for his family, so Don Carlos moved in as the provider for Jerusha and five children.

The birth took place. Jerusha, Hyrum’s sweetheart, had died in childbirth, and Don Carlos felt like he had failed in his mission. Hyrum received a letter from Samuel, his other brother just older than Don Carlos. The letter reads in part: “Jerusha has gone from a world of trouble and affliction and toil to rest until the morning of the resurrection. She died this evening about half past 7:00. She was delivered of a daughter on the first or the second of this month. She had been very low ever since, though some of the time she had been on the gain, so we had some hopes that she would get along. The family hopes proved vain, however, and Jerusha did not improve.”

When Samuel discovered her growing weaker the morning of her death, he summoned the family to her side to pray for her recovery. He quotes in the letter: “Our prayers did not prevail. She had her senses until the last. She told the children to tell their father that the Lord had taken their mother and left them for you to care for. I am praying that the Lord will give you strength, that your afflictions will not be more than you can bear.”

So Hyrum heard about the death of his wife while out on Church assignment, and that was sort of his lot. That story shows the dedication of Hyrum throughout his life. It wasn’t long after this event while Hyrum was still lamenting the death of Jerusha that Joseph asked him to remarry, and Hyrum refused. Joseph then essentially said: “I have just the woman for you. She’s a wonderful gal who’s just emigrated from England. She was converted in the Toronto, Canada, area, and her name is Mary Fielding.” Mary Fielding and Hyrum wed in the Kirtland area a few months after Jerusha’s death, and Mary took on the responsibility of caring for five children. She also had two children of her own, one of which was Joseph F. Smith, who was the sixth President of the Church."

[Calm]

Can't add by editing....

Not saying Joseph lied, but rather he had a number of priorities and for Hyrum apparently waiting until they were more emotionally ready was not the highest (I can see a few reasons right off...lots of children including a new baby needed care, Hyrum was needed by Joseph to help with church leadership and counsel).

Circumstances mattered to Joseph.  That is why it is important to be careful in generalizing from one situation to another without good evidence it is appropriate.

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

I usually use the Immigration books at my local Family History Center. They don't include passenger lists, so I have had to go find those in other locations when I cared that much about someone's immigration.

Given that everyone else has apparently had this tool at their finger tips, why hasn't it been widely known that Brigham Young attempted to persuade Martha Brotherton of an extra-monogamous relationship in early December?

Why would passenger lists tell us anything about BY's alleged propostion of Martha Brotherton?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

It has not been well known that it occurred in early December.

Define "early December".

Thomas Brotherton wrote on Tuesday, Dec 7, 1841** that they had arrived in Warsaw (Warren) on Nov 25 and were anticipating visiting Nauvoo, not moving to, the following week...so it would at earliest been after December 12 unless minds were changed and they both visited early  and then moved immediately.  Also Martha's 1842 comments state that they were at Nauvoo for "near three weeks"****so even if one assumes the Nov 25 date and that Warsaw was close enough to Nauvoo (20 miles iirc) to be seen as Nauvoo in Martha's mind and to receive frequent visits from the apostles, that is still the middle of December for the earliest date for the encounter.

If I understand your reasoning, your date depends on a 22 week for the gossip to travel to England and back in order to be reported in the April conference.  Where do you get that Martha's encounter was being discussed in England prior to the conference?

**https://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-vol2/2chp1.htm

****http://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/JS0966.doc

Edited June 25, 2016 by Calm