Joseph Smith's Polyandry?

[jkwilliams]

17 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

ALarson, the men described as Strikers in the Expositor were certainly portrayed as sexual predators. 

Not really, no. Here's where they show up in the Expositor:

Quote

It is a notorious fact, that many females in foreign climes, and in countries to us unknown, even in the most distant regions of the Eastern hemisphere, have been induced, by the sound of the gospel, to forsake friends, and embark upon a voyage across waters that lie stretched over the greater portion of the globe, as they supposed, to glorify God, that they might thereby stand acquitted in the great day of God Almighty. But what is taught them on their arrival at this place?- They are visited by some of the Strikers, for we know not what else to call them, and are requested to hold on and be faithful, for there are great blessings awaiting the righteous; and that God has great mysteries in store for those who love the lord, and cling to brother Joseph. They are also notified that Brother Joseph will see them soon, and reveal the mysteries of Heaven to their full understanding, which seldom fails to inspire them with new confidence in the Prophet, as well as a great anxiety to know what God has laid up in store for them, in return for the great sacrifice of father of mother, of gold and silver, which they gladly left far behind, that they might be gathered into the fold, and numbered among the chosen of God.

So, they are just "henchmen," for want of a better term, whose job it is to keep naive foreign women from fleeing Nauvoo before they can be approached by Joseph Smith et al. 

Quote

As I mentioned, those authoring the content of the Expositor wished to persuade the people of Nauvoo that Joseph Smith was the terrible person. Their audience was thoroughly convinced that Bennett was a reprobate, so the authors of the Expositor would not have had any interest in tying the activities of their so-called strikers to John C. Bennett.

This makes no sense. You say that the Expositor's authors did not want to tie the "strikers" to John Bennett, and yet you do it it anyway. 

Quote

As for the definition of the term striker, that is something that I realized at some point after I began using the term striker for Bennett's acolytes/followers/etc.

There is nothing that ties the term "striker" to sexual predation in Nauvoo, and the only person ever to refer to Bennett and his friends as "strikers" is you.

Something else that was mentioned, as well. You tell us that Mary Clift's case is illustrative of a pattern by which young women or widows were seduced by the "Bennett sex ring" and then became plural wives as a means of support and protection. Once again, the only person claiming a tie to Bennett is you. Hills told her he had learned about polygamy from the leaders of the church, which could mean anyone.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Meg Stout said:

The lovely thing is that I can, indeed, alter my work. But your statement here displays an interesting academic snobbery.

Here's where you lose credibility: her reasonable requests for accuracy and documentation are not "academic snobbery." She's right that, unless you start supporting your assertions, they are not going to get a lot of traction among serious historians.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meg Stout said:

Hi Calm,

The manner in which that first page, including the first stanza of Conjugal, has been retouched is atypical of Eliza's other pages for those first months of that journal. Perhaps the darker ink on several spots were not caused by tears. It is a thesis that can't be proved without destructive testing, which would not be permitted on such a document. But I am sure we can come up with a metric to demonstrate that this page is unique, such as:

Number of words edited by scraping

Number of letters re-inked

I have done that analysis myself but did not record the results other than to note that there are no other instances of scraping used to edit prior to that in this journal, nor would there be for several more months. There is no other page in that span where we see so many letters that appear to be re-inked.

And that still has nothing to do with your claim that it demonstrates the least bit of evidence for your pretend husband list.  Both the alleged original and the final version are most likely about eternal marriage.  You can be exactly write in all you claims about ink, words and tears and it still gives you nothing to forward your premise.

If it interests you enough on its own, I would suggest writing it out simply as research over what the word is, do everything technical you can do to it, there are more options then destroying the ink.  You might get a professional interested in looking at it for you without having the religious overtones attached and then you could shared publication and have some solid claims to work with.

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

ALarson, the men described as Strikers in the Expositor were certainly portrayed as sexual predators.

Meg, no matter how many times you state this, it is still not accurate.   Have you even read what is written in The Expositor where it mentions "strikers"?  I have to wonder...

Edited June 29, 2016 by ALarson

[Meg Stout]

So would objection be withdrawn if I were to replace instances of "striker" with "ardent devotee"? Ardent is felicitous for the purpose, as it implies both general passion and sexual passion.

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I know the archaic definition. What you need to establish is that the archaic meaning was intended in the Expositor. As I showed, the use of "striker" at that time referred to a henchman. If you have contemporary examples with that archaic meaning, I am all ears. 

Below is a portion of the Expositor text (copied from the FairMormon website http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Nauvoo_Expositor_Full_Text), demonstrating that at the least "Striker" is being used as a synonym for procurer of women to feed the alleged sexual appetites of Joseph Smith and his devotees:

"It is a notorious fact, that many females in foreign climes, and in countries to us unknown, even in the most distant regions of the Eastern hemisphere, have been induced, by the sound of the gospel, to forsake friends, and embark upon a voyage across waters that lie stretched over the greater portion of the globe, as they supposed, to glorify God, that they might thereby stand acquitted in the great day of God Almighty. But what is taught them on their arrival at this place?- They are visited by some of the Strikers, for we know not what else to call them, and are requested to hold on and be faithful, for there are great blessings awaiting the righteous; and that God has great mysteries in store for those who love the lord, and cling to brother Joseph. They are also notified that Brother Joseph will see them soon, and reveal the mysteries of Heaven to their full understanding, which seldom fails to inspire them with new confidence in the Prophet, as well as a great anxiety to know what God has laid up in store for them, in return for the great sacrifice of father of mother, of gold and silver, which they gladly left far behind, that they might be gathered into the fold, and numbered among the chosen of God.--They are visited again, and what is the result? They are requested to meet brother Joseph, or some of the Twelve, at some insulated point, or at some particularly described place on the bank of the Mississippi, or at some room, which wears upon its front--Positively NO Admittance. The harmless, inoffensive, and unsuspecting creatures, are so devoted to the Prophet, and the cause of Jesus Christ, that they do not dream of the deep laid and fatal scheme which prostrates happiness, and renders death itself desirable; but they meet him, expecting to receive through him a blessing, and learn the will of the Lord concerning them, and what awaits the faithful follower of Joseph, the Apostle and Prophet of God, When in the stead thereof, they are told, after having been sworn in one of the most solemn manners, to never divulge what is revealed to them, with a penalty of death attached that God Almighty has revealed it to him, that she should be his (Joseph's) Spiritual wife; for it was right anciently,and God will tolerate it again: but we must keep those pleasures and blessings form the world, for until there is a change in the government, we will endanger ourselves by practicing it-but we can enjoy the blessings of Jacob, David, and others, as well as to be deprived of them, if we do not expose ourselves to the law of the land. She is thunder-struck, faints recovers, and refuses. The Prophet damns her if she rejects. She thinks of the great sacrifice and of the many thousand miles she has traveled over sea and land, that she might save her soul from pending ruin, and replies, God's will be done and not mine. The Prophet and his devotees in this way are gratified. The next step to avoid public exposition from the common course of things, they are sent away for a time, until all is well; after which they return, as from a long visit. Those whom no power or influence could seduce, except that which is wielded by some individual feigning to be a God, must realize the remarks of an able writer, when he says, "if woman's feelings are turned to ministers of sorrow, where shall she look for consolation?" Her lot is to be wooed and want her heart is like some fortress that has been captured, sacked, abandoned, and left desolate. With her, the desire of the heart has failed-the great charm of existence is at an end; she neglects all the cheerful exercise of life, which gladen the spirits, quicken the pulses, and send the tide of life in healthful currents through the veins. Her rest is broken. The sweet refreshment of sleep is poisoned by melancholy dreams; dry sorrow drinks her blood, until her enfeebled frame sinks under the slightest external injury. Look for her after a little while, and you find friendship weeping over her untimely grave; and wondering that one who but so recently glowed with all the radiance of health and beauty, should so speedily be brought down to darkness and despair, you will be told of some wintry chill, of some casual indisposition that laid her low! But no one knows of the mental malady that previously sapped her strength, and made her so easy a pray to the spoiler. She is like some tender tree, the pride and beauty of the grove-graceful in its form, bright in its foliage, but with the worm praying at its heart; we find it withered when it should be most luxuriant. We see it drooping its branches to the earth, and shedding leaf by leaf until wasted and perished away, it falls in the stillness of the forest; and as we muse over the beautiful ruin, we strive in vain to recollect the blast or thunder-bolt that could have smitten it with decay. But no one knows the cause except the foul fiend who perpetrated the diabolical deed. 

"Our hearts have mourned and bled at the wretched and miserable condition of females in this place; many orphans have been the victims of misery and wretchedness, through the influence, that has been exerted over them, under the cloak of religion and afterwards, in consequence of that jealous disposition which predominates over the minds of some, have been turned upon a wide world, fatherless and motherless, destitute of friends and fortune; and robbed of that which nothing but death can restore. 

"Men solace themselves by saying the facts slumber in the dark caverns of midnight. But Lo! it is sudden day, and the dark deeds of foul fiends shall be exposed from the house-tops. A departed spirit, once the resident of St. Louis, shall yet cry aloud for vengeance."

_________________

It would seem that the "departed spirit, once the resident of St. Louis" is a reference to Martha Brotherton. In that sense, the Expositor would be explicitly inferring that Brigham Young and Heber Kimball were those being referred to as Strikers by the editors of the Expositor.

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

So would objection be withdrawn if I were to replace instances of "striker" with "ardent devotee"? Ardent is felicitous for the purpose, as it implies both general passion and sexual passion.

Below is a portion of the Expositor text (copied from the FairMormon website http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Nauvoo_Expositor_Full_Text), demonstrating that at the least "Striker" is being used as a synonym for procurer of women to feed the alleged sexual appetites of Joseph Smith and his devotees:

It would seem that the "departed spirit, once the resident of St. Louis" is a reference to Martha Brotherton. In that sense, the Expositor would be explicitly inferring that Brigham Young and Heber Kimball were those being referred to as Strikers by the editors of the Expositor.

You can't use "ardent devotee" because it doesn't fit. There's nothing in that passage tying the "strikers" to passion, sexual or not, and the identification of Martha Brotherton, however tenuous, says nothing about Brigham or Heber being "strikers," Several people have pointed out to you that there's nothing indicating that "striker" has a sexual meaning in the Expositor. It's a minor point, to be sure, but it's illustrative of the liberties you take with primary texts.

Either way, you yourself said that the authors of the Expositor would not have wanted to associate BY and HCK with the Bennett strikers, assuming that was a thing. But you made the association anyway, which makes no sense.

Edited June 29, 2016 by jkwilliams

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You can't use "ardent devotee" because it doesn't fit. There's nothing in that passage tying the "strikers" to passion, sexual or not, and the identification of Martha Brotherton, however tenuous, says nothing about Brigham or Heber being "strikers," Several people have pointed out to you that there's nothing indicating that "striker" has a sexual meaning in the Expositor. It's a minor point, to be sure, but it's illustrative of the liberties you take with primary texts.

isn't she calling them strikers.  I didn't realize by reading it she is saying they were known as strikers only that that is what she decided to call them. 

An earlier response: 

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.

 

Feels like a good time to move on from this issue.  Who cares what terms she uses to describe it.  Everyone seemed to get what she meant.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, stemelbow said:

isn't she calling them strikers.  I didn't realize by reading it she is saying they were known as strikers only that that is what she decided to call them. 

An earlier response: 

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.

Feels like a good time to move on from this issue.  Who cares what terms she uses to describe it.  Everyone seemed to get what she meant.

You're right. As I said, a minor hill, and not one to die on. It's the smallest of the problems with her theories.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

 

One can certainly request that I "Round up the usual suspects", but ironically it is precisely because I am looking at all of the plural marriage activity that I am finding noteworthy circumstances.

I am not sure how you got 'do a thorough social context exploration of both plural and monogamous marriages to find the patterns and anomalies' to mean "round up the usual subjects".

The central problem to your work is you are labeling multitudes of mostly minor circumstances "noteworthy" where the evidence is not noteworthy at all in regards to your thesis.  Just because something is new to you or even new to everyone does not mean it is noteworthy in terms of your theses.  If you found the lost scrolls associated with the Book of Abraham, that would be newsbreaking noteworthy and most likely completely useless to your thesis.  You need to stop thinking interesting equals useful.

When I was taught to do research and analytical, I was taught to start small, find something noteworthy to be interested in and then thouroughly examine that.  Do a complete lit review tightly focusing on the topic, avoiding tempting offtopic areas (though suggested to make note of them for further papers down the line), take notes of anything that might be remotely helpful in terms of sources and indications why I think it may be linked, and write down word for word with perfect punctuation the sources I thought were promising.  Get it into thoroughly documented form.  That way I wasn't spending too much time documenting stuff I wasn't likely to use, but I would never have to say "I remember reading somewhere, maybe in a letter from the New York Times that....but I can't find it or something similar, but it is too good to leave out, so here it is" in all its there is no way now to prove this isn't just a mixed up memory or even worse a total fraud.  Anything you have written from memory that lacks a source, you need to take the time to find it again, document it properly and if you can't remove it.  If you can't let go of it, add an index of lost ideas and see if your followers might find it for you.  I was able to track down a lost quote for Dan Peterson for one of his books...more likely article and FM members are always asking for this kind of help because they have come across something said years ago when they were in research mode but they know that is no excuse and they must follow the rules if they are planning to use it as evidence (rules for just use in commentary because it says something better than you feel you can are looser if you have made a sincere effort to find the original source and author, but evidence or major ideas you built on needs to be documented.  

In less savvy tech days, my profs suggested we pack around note cards for quotes and a notebook for keeping track of ideas and their development, including how you came to think and use a text; a list of whatever you looked at, not only location found, but title and cataloguenumber and any page read and a summary of contents, including promising avenues.  Even if you never found at that time a relevant idea or evidence in a book, you may realize later that an unread section might be fruitful and with precise documentation, it is a breeze to know what needs to be checked and what has already been harvested.  When I got on to larger projects, I used a notebook for each section, dividers for the subsections and kept a masterbook for quick access/review.  If I had died in the middle of the library one night, someone could take my work and repeat a very good portion of it, in essence replication of my essential thought processes could be achieved.  At the end of the lit review and evidence collecting, I would go through all my collected data which were on the notecards and as well as a second set of note cards for my own ideas at least five times, rating them for relevance and then importance.  And as much as I hungered to create the largest, most fascinating paper on the subject possible, I knew if a source wasn't a solid contribution, if it ended up as a few lines of text surrounded by massive attempts to justify its inclusion, I knew it had to go and if I felt it was essential it went.  I kept ideas and sources that were essential in my view and then the best 3-5 sources/evidences that backed them up.  Did this for each section and still always ended up with papers 4 times longer that requested, no one ever complained about length as long as I was careful to keep tight rein on quotes, choosing the most relevant and useful and then if I had room for more documentation, I would add the best of the no new  stuff, might just be repeating what was said before, but that can be useful to show an idea is solid, you just don't need pages and pages of repeats unless perhaps it is your core thesis and you are doing a Master's or doctorate, though even then generally sources supporting one idea in my experience are grouped after the idea in a multiple listing within one footnote to keep the writing tight and on target.  Editing an analytical work does not just mean just checking for spelling and grammar and improving how it reads/sounds so it is enjoyable to read.  Editing means being brutal to your work, trying to suppress the affection one has for it if that gets in the way or pumping it up if wanting for it to be your best work ever or to be the most helpful and meaningful discussion out there on the topic.  I was happy when I ended up with at least a quarter of my notecards set aside for other possible projects (earlier I felt more comfortable with half but as I got better in tracking stuff down, I could be more focused without worrying I was missing something crucial.

Your approach that you want your theory to cover everything is laudable as well as ambitious, but imo even if history is significantly different than Physics, you need to go about it in much the same way.  Take a small part of the problem and work hard on getting all the info on that and reconstruct it to the best of your ability without using this time for speculation.  Get your small project criticised by someone who knows what they are doing to make course corrections early on before you get locked in those paradigms so few can avoid, according to your own words.  That kind of help can maybe put off the lockdown long enough so when it happens it is a good paradigm and much less error will creep in to it due to bias.  

By approaching a Grand Unified/Theory of Everything in small pieces first, working to make sure your groups of puzzle pieces are the right shape and in the right general area and oh, so important, you have not accidentally picked up so many puzzle pieces that don't belong that you will never be able to assemble it in full.  Working on sections at a time, nailing them down without less valuable/relevant data and claims, accepting and examining in depth offered corrections and challenges without looking for any motive besides these critics want to help your work be great, even if in the end you conclude the criticism amounts to just "that is not what I think so you are wrong".  But that must come in the end or you will miss insights, possibly great insights.  We can't have our mind made up before we go to God in prayer on what the answer is going to be and expected that the Spirit is going to be able to actually speak to our hearts and minds instead of just patting our heads so to speak and sending us off to learn it on our own...which generally involves significant discomfort and even pain.  

Once the basic sections come together, then is the time to start seeing how they fit into the whole picture.  Again, too many errors and/or having the main bulk of the section speculation is likely to prevent accurate meshing and pride and stubbornness, the kind that prevents us looking at our own work with skeptical eyes or trust others, are not good research tools outside of helping on be passionate about the work.  And the picture that is created is misshapened and harder and harder to make work as a whole once that stage is reached.

Awhile back, my husband reported to me that one of the, if not the main reasons inventor/new idea enterpreneurs was their refusal to listen to others.  These failures have to maintain total control over their product, they ignore advisers assuming that their passion and vision are the key elements to making a successful business.  Overtime I have seen these men lose their businesses time and time again because they make crap marketing decisions, are afraid to delegate research or anything doing with improving the product because they feel it will no longer be theirs and they rarely have time to just work on that as much as it needs because of other duties they won't delegate...no improvements usually means no investors longterm, dissatisfied employees and hundreds of other problems leading to the ultimate end...the dream dies.  Often if halfway decent it gets picked up with a little modification by someone or several someones willing to listen to advice and criticisms, who pays close attention to the competition to see what they might be missing, make adjustments and delegate and often they make it a total success.  From what I have see this pretty much happens in any field of endeavour where new ideas get shared.  Those who can play with others no matter what position that puts them in produce better work and are more likely to get their dream or a lot closer to it.  The world's playground has way too many rocks and trash in it and predators so I am not telling people to be naive (good contracts make for better work conditions and positive ends). You never should let someone take advantage of you but listening to criticism and being willing to use the best for sure and take a deep look at the good and use it if it adds and put it aside for consideration from time to time just in case something new leads you to rethink that section and now the criticism makes sense to you.  The bad (and by this I mean the stuff that is undocumented or faux documented.

A little bit more  on the process of creating a work not only to be happy with, but that a wide range of individuals from dabblers, to serious amateurs like yourself (by that I mean unpaid and limited training, if any, but willing to put extensive time and work to go to original sources and not just rely on lit reviews, though studying others' work even when it is just cataloguing what has been done is essential at some early point as those who completely ignore others' work because they don't want to get tainted are talking nonsense because pretty much all work, even records have bias built into them and while 'fresh eyes' is not a bad way to go when creating one's vision, if that is all or mostly what one uses it is no longer likely a vision, but a delusion.  And this applies to those who read the books and articles and reviews and journals and original sources but rarely take a step back to serious consider that 'this writer got it right and I was wrong' even if it means tossing all the work (not the documentation, but the premises and theory and commentary) and starting from scratch.

Back to the specific material....

It is extremely typical in that day and age for a widow with children to remarry because mothers on their own were often victims of poverty, families often had to be split up to go to better off relatives or ones that could use the help themselves with older children coming to take care of younger or boys being apprenticed or put to work on farms.  There were plenty of options in a tight knit community, most didn't need to sell their bodies for sex as established men with or without families even with money to pay for caretakers usually wanted wives.  And they were often willing to take children as well, but if not these would be sent to familly  members, schools, etc.  And  due to death rates of mothers in childbirth, etc, there were a lot of single fathers out there who wanted a wife proven to be able to care for children.  And age difference...most men at that time capable of supporting more than one family had to be older and thus more financially secure, so age difference is simply correlate to plural marriage by that.  So again all those points aren't particularly noteworthy for your theory.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

The lovely thing is that I can, indeed, alter my work. But your statement here displays an interesting academic snobbery.

Recall also that for the most part you are pulling from my blog and not from my book. I will not edit the body of those blogs, as I consider that they represent in themselves a sort of history regarding the development of my theses. I can certainly add introductions or afterwords to point folks to the updated content.

Snobbery...well I had thought you wanted to write something that could at least be called investigative journalism, if not a serious commentary on history, but if this is just a passion for yourself with no intent to present an opportunity to change people's concepts about Joseph Smith and plural,marriage as I supposed your various introductions explained or if you have reverted to the original idea of writing historical fiction, please let us know so we can direct you to an board more appropriate for those genres.  You might also want to let those who wrote blurbs for your book that this missed the point of the tome.

As far as my not currently using the book much and instead reverting to the blog, you have yet to indicate where there is any significant change between your blog and your book so I am wondering if there is enough benefit to use that to copy/paste material because on my tech, it reverts to the cover art each time I shift between pages to either copy/paste, make a note or comment or do some searching to check a claim.  I am currently reading your book and taking massive quotes/notes of that as well as on new blog posts where you have joined conversations since you finished the M* series so it is very important to not have my tech crash or have to constantly reload.  The blog series does not cause the same issues.

I also need to decide if I should print up the hundreds of pages of documentation, quotes, and commentary I produced on your M* work as well as comments made on your personal public blog that talked about the development of the idea a number of years previous to 2014 when I transfer those documents to my hopefully soon available heavily, but carefully used 'new' computer...but can't work on that for probably another 6 months until my bruised bum allows sitting more than 15 minutes a day.  I prefer  working off hard copy for analysis so I can write notes immediately, but that is an investment of wear and tear on an old printer and ink and a few small trees so leaning towards not worth it.

While I have yet to reread with close attention the more recent blogs or the first part of your book I have managed to get through, so far I am seeing details added that do not add to the strength of the thesis, but are interesting touches and make the work itself more readable.  Very understandable since you come from the storytelling emphasis and have focused on that in your workshops you go to, if my memory serves.  So I would describe what I have read as fleshing out the narrative while the material on the thesis you are attempting to demonstrate shows little to no development since 2014 even with the significant responses you Have received since the first posting of the Faithful Joseph series, both from thoughtful bloggers and at least several professional historians, including at least one relatively indepth analysis from Hales though I don't plan to read the entirety till I am done with your book, but have read it when google brings it up as a source for something I am doublecheking.  Plus I assume you are getting a number of opportunities to discuss with a range of fellow enthusiasts at the MHA and any other conferences you might attend in the field.  Then there is the private email you posted of Brian Hales, so it is not a jump to expect that you have had the opportunity for deep, private discussion though significant doubt on my part you took advantage of it.

In summary, at this time I see interesting developments in narrative, but the claimed reason for the project is more or less stagnated since 2014 in the sense of actual new insights.  I don't see simply adding any and possibly even all new data from that time  period encountered into the current rigid theoretical framework (all widows with children and incomplete recordkeeping that enter into plural marriage are filed into the victim/sinner category as fornicators or wannabe fornicators) as any sign of progress or analytical thought, just formulaic creative writing when it comes right down to it.

Perhaps the rest of the book will prove me wrong and I will see obvious signs she at least considered multiple options before immediately dismissing them or was willing to remove or alter or discuss with credible reasonings after presenting a contrary argument correctly, without hyperbole, why her version should be considered the most likely one outside of 'it has to fit into the story someway because everything must be taken into account'....a wise tactic in engineering if one means everything relevant and I assume she does if she is working as an engineer (vague on details...me, not her); however that qualification of needing to demonstrate relevancy befor including an item seems to me to have been dropped to a great extent in this work...prime example, when Snow's poem ended up not being altered in the way she expected, she still devoted extensive space and time to its analysis (not a bad thing in itself, but irrelevant to her current work) and then to make it relevant constructed a scenario of events around it to lead to Snow expressing feelings about something that has absolutely no reference in the poem itself and actually appears to contradict the idea that one of the recipients was a "pretend husband".

[Calm]

Got to go, I am hoping that after tomorrow my off time won't be bed bound (driving in summer really screws me up) so hopefully no more epics, but no pro isles.

[juliann]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 

 

Feels like a good time to move on from this issue.  Who cares what terms she uses to describe it.  Everyone seemed to get what she meant.

She is redefining a word used during the time she is referring to. That adds confusion to say the least. It is actually these smaller things that make it easier to see through the methodology being used. It becomes difficult for the uninitiated to wade through pages of name and date dumps wrapped in sexual voyeurism and overwrought vocabulary. 

My question, given the lack of evidence, is why she so badly wants our treasured Founding Mothers to be mindless fornicators. The male protector thing is particularly tiresome considering many women crossed the plains without a male and often supported their own families. 

[Calm]

And doing the whole thing in almost absolute secrecy doesn't make much sense.  It isn't like all the women were given "pretend husbands".  Elvira wasn't pregnant at the time so why did Eliza get dumped in her favor after the huge trauma Eliza went through and then allegedly losing a baby.

[Calm]

Why doesn't MegS assume Elivira makes use of Queen's Lace instead of assuming she swears off sex competely until after Joseph dies, either with Joseph or Johnathan?

[Meg Stout]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Why doesn't MegS assume Elivira makes use of Queen's Lace instead of assuming she swears off sex competely until after Joseph dies, either with Joseph or Johnathan?

QAL is a possibility, as is the infertiliy followed by lack of infertility that it appears afflicts 1% of women.

However there is no reason for a publicly married woman to avoid conception. There was no strenuous task in her future (e.g., Emma's known involvement in retrieving the golden plates) to justify avoiding pregnancy. And though QAL is relatively safe, it isn't a pleasant thing to force your body to menstruate, according to modern folks who describe the efficacy of QAL.

I maintain that the most reasonable explanation for Elvira's initial lack of children after her public marriage is lack of sex. This in light of the records left by children, grandchildren, and neighbor.

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

However there is no reason for a publicly married woman to avoid conception.

No reason?  You can't be serious.  It's statements like this one that really chip away at your credibility as a historian and journalist.  

There are many reasons why a married woman would want to avoid conceiving.  

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

However there is no reason for a publicly married woman to avoid conceiving

I am talking about before her marriage...why is she not considered one of the wives of sorrow given that in your opinion as soon as Eliza no longer needs protection, Elivira immediately gets moved into that slot.  Why the unseemly haste?  Why rob one woman (Eliza) at her apparently promised chance of a loving companionship (her poetry certainly indicates she honours marriage and likely desires it for herself) at a time she is so heartbroken and in despair she cries over a poem about eternal marriage?  Why aren't the tears because she is no longer the chosen bride?   Why the bizarre switch?  Why not if not for no other reason then they were scared Elivira was a victim of your Strikers and needed immediate protection?  Why would a woman committed to celibacy need a "pretend husband"?  But a woman fearing pregnancy or disease would in your view.

Why out of all these women you speculate as targets and victims of Bennett and his group, why does the one woman that Bennett wants more than any other according to your theory, why is she essentially the only one able to resist his charms and wiles while all others appear to fall into his arms without much thought, yet she in your view not only remains untarnished without any hint of sin or temptation, but remains that way for years after marriage?

And yet it is so important she get married immediately that she takes the place of another woman at the altar.

 

Edited June 30, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No reason?  You can't be serious.  It's statements like this one that really chip away at your credibility as a historian and journalist.  

There are many reasons why a married woman would want to avoid conceiving.  

And in fact in her theory Elivira is already an anomaly and is avoiding conceiving out of pure loyalty to her friend, Emma, in apparent defiance of the very covenant she commited to live with Joseph.

But why does a woman who is a virgin and who plans on continuing in that state need to have a rushed marriage or a public marriage at all?

Edited June 30, 2016 by Calm

[Meg Stout]

19 hours ago, ALarson said:

No reason?  You can't be serious.  It's statements like this one that really chip away at your credibility as a historian and journalist.  

There are many reasons why a married woman would want to avoid conceiving.  

Hi ALarson,

In that day I would argue that a married woman would welcome conception. Producing a baby proved that you weren't barren.

Even though QAL and other methods of preventing pregnancy were used by some, contraception was considered a sinful and punishable teaching, as seen in the penalties (e.g., three months hard labor) Charles Knowlton received for his little birth control pamphlet. It wasn't until the 1870s that the pamphlet was able to be published without the publishers going to jail, and that conviction was only overturned on a technicality.

Suggesting a married woman in the early 1800s would openly avoid conception by means other than abstinence is anachronistic.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Meg Stout
Clarifying language in concluding summary

[Meg Stout]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

And in fact in her theory Elivira is already an anomaly and is avoiding conceiving out of pure loyalty to her friend, Emma, in apparent defiance of the very covenant she commited to live with Joseph.

But why does a woman who is a virgin and who plans on continuing in that state need to have a rushed marriage or a public marriage at all?

My hypothesis was explained on the Preface thread, but to recap here:

I suspect Bennett had planned to marry Elvira (reasons given in other thread). I propose that in November 1842 it became clear to Joseph that the unlawful intercourse heresy was not quashed, based in part on a letter Lester Brooks sent reporting on the Kirtland Stake. The newspaper report of the letter attributes it to "Justin" Brooks. Lester specifically sends his greeting to Elvira Cowles at the end of the report.

A second reason for the "haste" would be the promise given to Jonathan for being willing to be a participant in a pretend marriage. If similar to what Joseph Kingsbury reported being promised, the blessings were glorious and involved reunion of the man with his deceased wife and child. So it was partially a perceived need to shelter Elvira in a marriage to end Bennett's hope of obtaining her (per the hypothesis that she was the young woman he had wished to marry) and it was partially due to a need to allow Jonathan to do that which would secure the blessings he had been promised.

A reason Elvira might have been better prepared to reject the spiritual wifery heresy would be related to having a better appreciation for the doctrine of Celestial marriage, as I have proposed that she would naturally have been one of the first Joseph approached about plural marriage. This suspicion that Elvira Cowles might have been the first woman approached about plural marriage was first expressed by Andrew Jensen in his ~1869 query to the Holmes household. I don't have Jensen's letter, but I have seen the response Marietta Holmes Welling sent to Jensen, stating that her mother was not the first to covenant with Joseph (I don't have access to the letter at the moment, as the letter was removed from the San Diego Mormon Battalion visitor's center during the remodel, and I am not sure if the digital record of those items has been made available yet).

In the book I state that it is not possible to know whether Bennett achieved his goal (of gaining sexual access to the woman he had hoped to marry). For better or worse, it appears Elvira either didn't keep a journal, or she destroyed whatever writings she had created. So, presuming Elvira was the woman Bennett had loved, there are no suggestive writings upon which to hang a hypothesis regarding whether or not Bennett managed to coerce the woman he had hoped to marry into unlawful intercourse.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Meg Stout
Adding discussion of the "haste" with which Jonathan marries Elvira after the postulated engagement to Eliza Snow

[jkwilliams]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

And in fact in her theory Elivira is already an anomaly and is avoiding conceiving out of pure loyalty to her friend, Emma, in apparent defiance of the very covenant she commited to live with Joseph.

But why does a woman who is a virgin and who plans on continuing in that state need to have a rushed marriage or a public marriage at all?

My mind keeps going back to Meg's accusation that you and Juliann and others are offended that Meg is sullying the name of a favored female ancestor. Could it be that she thinks this because that could be her motivation in all of this? To make her ancestor, Elvira, the one sainted person untainted by any of the scandal? I don't know, and it is unfair to assign motivation, but I can't help asking myself that question.

[Calm]

Did they marry everyone off in those days to the most eligible bachelor rather than simply telling the unwanted suitor "no"?

Rather an extreme action...take the fiancee of a  woman who was in deep pain and suffering and who could probably have used the great comfort of having the promised husband as a companion, but a promise to a woman doesn't seem to matter in MegS's mind....and make him marry another woman because "no, get lost, not interested, you are a jerk" isn't understood?  

And since when did marriage stop Bennett making advances?  His wife iirc accused him of breaking up 7 marriages before he hit Nauvoo.  And given that Elvira in MegS's version isn't bonding with her husband but it is all an act, she would be just as vulnerable in a pretend marriage around Bennett as unmarried.  

Either Elvira was strong enough to resist his temptations or she wasn't.  Marriage vows meant nothing to Bennett.  If there was all that worry, rather than stealing Eliza's to be husband for her own, why didn't Elvira just go visit some friends out of town until Bennett could be removed?

And this still doesn't show the least bit connection between the poem "Conjugal" and it being evidence for a pretend marriage when the reality is it is evidence for a fully consummated one.

[Guest]

The term of "academic snobbery" has been used to dismiss the comments of others by the author. Since I do not fit either the term of both terms let me point out this troubling fact. When writing the history (or attempting too) of the lives of many in Nauvoo, should not the true facts govern all. Does personal conjecture or questionable secondhand accounts have no place when it comes to the lives of those being called into question? The lives of the founder of our Faith and the lives of these women deserve at least that much. Honor and respect deserve that much at least. This book (as I am sure the author hopes) will be read by both members and non-members alike. Both deserve the facts, backed up by creditable sources. So far it seems the gaps are filled by conjecture and imagination. The reparations of Joseph and a lot of women demand the truth, as well as the reader. It would seem that many things are taken from the book the author noted, "Nightfall in Nauvoo", which sounds like a novel written to entice the reader to be draw to modern day romance novels. Upon compliant to many comments, one poster noted that more critical comments were made of college term papers. The author is after all speaking of the person that millions think of as a Prophet, that alone should be approached with accurate facts and a clear approach, with only the unvarnished truth. 

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Pa Pa said:

The term of "academic snobbery" has been used to dismiss the comments of others by the author. Since I do not fit either the term of both terms let me point out this troubling fact. When writing the history (or attempting too) of the lives of many in Nauvoo, should not the true facts govern all. Does personal conjecture or questionable secondhand accounts have no place when it comes to the lives of those being called into question? The lives of the founder of our Faith and the lives of these women deserve at least that much. Honor and respect deserve that much at least. This book (as I am sure the author hopes) will be read by both members and non-members alike. Both deserve the facts, backed up by creditable sources. So far it seems the gaps are filled by conjecture and imagination. The reparations of Joseph and a lot of women demand the truth, as well as the reader. It would seem that many things are taken from the book the author noted, "Nightfall in Nauvoo", which sounds like a novel written to entice the reader to be draw to modern day romance novels. Upon compliant to many comments, one poster noted that more critical comments were made of college term papers. The author is after all speaking of the person that millions think of as a Prophet, that alone should be approached with accurate facts and a clear approach, with only the unvarnished truth. 

So basically, stick to historical fact and leave the speculation and imagination to the fiction writers.
Sounds like a good idea to me.

I'd settle for not passing off the speculation as actual history.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So basically, stick to historical fact and leave the speculation and imagination to the fiction writers.
Sounds like a good idea to me.

I'd settle for not passing off the speculation as actual history.

As would I.