Joseph Smith's Polyandry?

[Meg Stout]

16 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.

Hi JLHPROF,

The challenge with this is that most of what is currently accepted as "actual history" involves the speculation of someone.

For example, on the Prelude to a Killing thread that is now closed, my cousin mapman (we're both descended from Austin Cowles, likely through a wife of the Job Welling) asserted that Austin Cowles knew Elvira was sealed to Joseph Smith. However I see no reason in the contemporary documentation to make that claim. It has been put forward as a reason that Austin Cowles turned against Joseph and added his affidavit to the Expositor. But the idea that Austin knew of his daughter's involvement in Joseph Smith's plural marriage appears to be speculation.

The reason that Austin Cowles is not reviled on par with William Law would be that Austin Cowles did have descendants who gathered to Utah. There is a clear bias in Mormon history where the ancestors who gathered to the west are protected, with their particular loved ones spared from repeated discussions of their wrongs. So an entire body of unwarranted positive speculation has grown up around Austin Cowles and others whose descendants remained faithful to the LDS faith.

In a similar manner, William Smith by rights ought to have become the face of apostasy, the place currently occupied in Mormon discussion by Thomas B. Marsh. The problem is that William is too close to Joseph, and William never fully returned to what we of the LDS tradition consider to be "the truth." I would project that the average Mormon doesn't even know William Smith existed, because there's really no way to discuss William that doesn't bring up difficult questions most are unequipped to handle.

You have speculated that D&C 132 in some manner contradicts what I am saying. That is speculation on your part.

Luckily for most of us commenting on this thread, we do believe in God, and the God we believe in is an omniscient God. Perhaps I am not as similar to others in my hope that Eternal Judgement will in some manner be associated with the statement that in the end the earth will be like a great Urim and Thummim, where all will be revealed. But that is my hope, despite the uncomfortable bits of my own personal history such universal disclosure would reveal.

I actively look forward to a time when all is known, where there is no more room for speculation. If such a future day comes, I project that all my surprises will be pleasant ones.

Edited July 2, 2016 by Meg Stout

[Calm]

A bigger problem imo is when one excuses and justifies gossip by labeling it as speculation.

[JLHPROF]

42 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

You have speculated that D&C 132 in some manner contradicts what I am saying. That is speculation on your part.

Not really.  D&C 132 gives the motivations for plural marriage.  You invent new motivations based on spurious theories.

Quote

Luckily for most of us commenting on this thread, we do believe in God, and the God we believe in is an omniscient God.

Yeah, you don't know me very well yet, but I reject the three big "O's" as nonsense.
And as I said before, if you think we will ever know which of Joseph's wives he had relations with you're dreaming.  There is still privacy, even in the eternities.

[Meg Stout]

For some reason I'm not able to quote John William's assertion on page 24 that the Rochester ship's log shows Sarah Noon and her two daughters traveling alone. 

As mention in another thread which is now closed, if you do look at the passenger list for the Rochester (looking for ships that arrived in New York on April 20, 1841), you see a list including Brigham Young and others. William Noon (aged 35) is listed just above Sarah Noon and two Noon children. John's assertion therefore that William Noon remained in England is incorrect. I am disappointed, as I thought this was one of two facts I believed this extended course of discussion had "corrected" about my understanding of Nauvoo events.

I will thank those who pointed out Thomas Brotherton's December 7, 1841, letter published in England in the Millennial Star of February 1842, which fixes the date Brotherton arrived in Warren, the date his daughter and son-in-law (with whom Martha says she was visiting) moved to Nauvoo, and his intentions of following within the week. That does not controvert my reconstruction. In fact, it makes the timeline work better.

And I am happy to remove the term "striker" from my book as an archaic term whose usage isn't entirely clear to all readers. I think I had previously been using the term "acolyte".

Other than that, the hundreds of printed pages of dialogue between me and those who disagree with me haven't expose much useful fact, other than to document that there is disagreement.

I thank those who have been willing at length to document the nature of their disagreements with me. While some of you may not believe in an omniscient God, I am content that these internet records will be sufficiently permanent that it will be possible to examine the basis for the derision with which some regard my current work.

To be clear, I am consistently derided when I point out the logical fallacies in core tenets held by many commenting here:

1) Many commenting on this thread believe Emma was uninformed of Joseph's activities regarding plural marriage until May 1843 based on Emily Partridge's description of why her vows were repeated. This portrays the founder of Mormonism as a lying philanderer, even though many aware of these covenant marriages, including his wife, would later honor Joseph as a good and pure individual.

2) Many commenting on this thread believe that sex was a major element in many of Joseph's plural marriages, including cases where the woman had a legal husband and DNA proves the legal husband was the father of offspring conceived during the lifetime of Joseph Smith (e.g., Sylvia Sessions Lyon).

3) Many believe that it is unremarkable that there are no provable offspring from Joseph's many plural marriages, suggesting that a condition that affects 1% of women (infertility (6% of women) followed by later fertility (~20% of those previously infertile)) should be presumed to be the reason why women such as Elvira Cowles and Louisa Beaman didn't conceive a child during Joseph's lifetime. And in any case, it is asserted that there were likely undocumented miscarriages or use by plural wives of contraception, such as Queen Anne's Lace, even though it is only victims of Bennett and his acolytes who mention use of medicine to prevent pregnancy.

4) Many commenting here believe that women who covenanted with Joseph and others in 1842 could not possibly have been involved in any way with the teachings of John Bennett and his acolytes that unlawful intercourse was acceptable. Specifically, they assert that there is no way that the children conceived by Sarah Peak Noon and Lucina Roberts Johnson could possibly have been engendered by anyone other than Heber C. Kimball and Theodore Turley, respectively. These tend to be the same people who assert that Joseph Smith was having sex with Sylvia Sessions at the same time she conceived a child proven to be the offspring of Windsor Lyon.

5) Many commenting here take Martha Brotherton's affidavit as truth, believing that Joseph Smith would have told a convert fresh off the boat in December 1841 to submit to becoming Brigham's second wife, stating "I know that this is lawful and right before God, and if there is any sin in it, I will answer for it before God." That after having said such a thing, Joseph would let Martha leave with no more than a promise to keep the interaction a secret. This at a time when Joseph's himself had only trusted long-time associates to whom he had only revealed the matter after impressing upon them that he was putting his very life in their hands. They do not see that this is inconsistent with what Joseph said to any other person, or see the strong parallels to what several women testified they had been taught by Bennett and his acolytes. For example, Catherine Laur Fuller's testimony that "L. O. Littlefield had been at my house and made propositions to have unlawful intercourse – he urged hard. This was about the last of January or first of February, had been 3 or 4 times in course of 2 or 3 weeks. He urged doctrines such as the following, namely that there was no harm in having unlawful intercourse, that others conducted in the same way, there should be no sin come upon her—if there was any it should come upon himself..." Or Catherine's testimony that Bennett had used that line himself in his original summer 1841 proposition that she provide him sex.

I am about to be unavailable for a period of time. In a few days I might have a chance to check back and see what others have said on this thread. In the mean time, may you have a happy summer!

[Calm]

Not a particular accurate summary, tending to be way more full of absolutes than the conversation held.

Ifind it interesting that you refuse to believe Brotherton's statement based on your appraisal of JS's character, but completely ignore the characters of Heber C Kimball and Brigham Young in regard to unlikelihood of their proceeding with spiritualwifery solely on the basis of urging from William Smith or Bennett.  You have refused to explain what would stop them from talking to Joseph to ensure they could trust what they have been told.

Why is character only important for the few you want to protect from gossip, while you ignore the characters of those you wish to gossip about?

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

And I am happy to remove the term "striker" from my book as an archaic term whose usage isn't entirely clear to all readers. I think I had previously been using the term "acolyte".

The terms that should be used are the terms used by those involved.  It avoids mischaracterization.

1) Many commenting on this thread believe Emma was uninformed of Joseph's activities regarding plural marriage until May 1843 based on Emily Partridge's description of why her vows were repeated. This portrays the founder of Mormonism as a lying philanderer, even though many aware of these covenant marriages, including his wife, would later honor Joseph as a good and pure individual.

When Emma knew about polygamy is debatable.  She was definitely uninformed about some of his marriages.  But Joseph was no philanderer.  He entered into marriages, not casual sexual ralationships.  Given his choice and Emma's approval (as well as Church membership) his marriages would have looked more like those later in Utah.

2) Many commenting on this thread believe that sex was a major element in many of Joseph's plural marriages, including cases where the woman had a legal husband and DNA proves the legal husband was the father of offspring conceived during the lifetime of Joseph Smith (e.g., Sylvia Sessions Lyon).

Yes and no.  We don't know which wives Joseph had sex with and we never will.  It's not an issue because they were his wives and it's no issue for a husband to have sex with a wife.  None at all.

3) Many believe that it is unremarkable that there are no provable offspring from Joseph's many plural marriages, suggesting that a condition that affects 1% of women (infertility (6% of women) followed by later fertility (~20% of those previously infertile)) should be presumed to be the reason why women such as Elvira Cowles and Louisa Beaman didn't conceive a child during Joseph's lifetime. And in any case, it is asserted that there were likely undocumented miscarriages or use by plural wives of contraception, such as Queen Anne's Lace, even though it is only victims of Bennett and his acolytes who mention use of medicine to prevent pregnancy.

It's very unremarkable. I don't know about "avoiding" pregnancy, but there is simple logic to be followed in Joseph's polyandrous relations:

1. A man is sealed to a wife in what is basically secrecy.
2. He and she leave the sealing and room together for the wedding night & consummate the marriage, perhaps even at her home.
3. Due to circumstances this is possibly the one and only time that these relations took place.

Now, is it reasonable to expect a historian 200 years later to be able to find documented evidence that these relations ever happened?  Really?
If my wife or your wife didn't get pregnant on their wedding night (and there were no honeymoon/hotel room documentation) would there be any evidence we consummated our marriage that night?

It's such a stupid argument. 

4) Many commenting here believe that women who covenanted with Joseph and others in 1842 could not possibly have been involved in any way with the teachings of John Bennett and his acolytes that unlawful intercourse was acceptable. Specifically, they assert that there is no way that the children conceived by Sarah Peak Noon and Lucina Roberts Johnson could possibly have been engendered by anyone other than Heber C. Kimball and Theodore Turley, respectively. These tend to be the same people who assert that Joseph Smith was having sex with Sylvia Sessions at the same time she conceived a child proven to be the offspring of Windsor Lyon.

That's right.  Polygamy was a commandment by revelation from God regarding the true order of marriage in the eternities.  Not a cover up scheme to hide adultery.  If you start with the wrong premise you will draw the wrong conclusion.  Based on the teachings of Joseph, Brigham, Heber and others, do you really think they would have allowed women guilty of adultery into their families?
It's Pope Gregory and Mary Magdalene all over again.  Falsely labelling righteous wives as little more than prostitutes.  Leaving out the religious side changes movivations incorrectly.

 

 

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

As mention in another thread which is now closed, if you do look at the passenger list for the Rochester (looking for ships that arrived in New York on April 20, 1841), you see a list including Brigham Young and others. William Noon (aged 35) is listed just above Sarah Noon and two Noon children. John's assertion therefore that William Noon remained in England is incorrect.

Which only proves that William arrived in New York.  For you to then make the huge leap that he was the Father of Sarah's son (who was born after she was married to Heber C. Kimball), is pretty ridiculous.  You seem very desperate to prove certain aspects of your theories and it's odd that you're willing to go to such extremes as this.  

.

Edited July 4, 2016 by ALarson

[juliann]

On 7/2/2016 at 7:26 AM, Meg Stout said:

 

The reason that Austin Cowles is not reviled on par with William Law would be that Austin Cowles did have descendants who gathered to Utah. There is a clear bias in Mormon history where the ancestors who gathered to the west are protected, with their particular loved ones spared from repeated discussions of their wrongs. So an entire body of unwarranted positive speculation has grown up around Austin Cowles and others whose descendants remained faithful to the LDS faith.

In a similar manner, William Smith by rights ought to have become the face of apostasy, the place currently occupied in Mormon discussion by Thomas B. Marsh. The problem is that William is too close to Joseph, and William never fully returned to what we of the LDS tradition consider to be "the truth." I would project that the average Mormon doesn't even know William Smith existed, because there's really no way to discuss William that doesn't bring up difficult questions most are unequipped to handle.

 

It helps to know your motivation, you are attempting to elevate your ancestors who have not been given a proper place in LDS history. The objections are that you elevate them by demeaning others in some vile ways. I'm quite puzzled why you find it so unfair that a Utah based church would be more involved with those who were part of it as opposed to those who stayed behind. 

I find your comments about William odd, especially comparing him to Marsh. No one knows a thing about Marsh other than the overused and trivial story in a manual. Here is an Ensign story, by a historian, that talks more about William than the other brothers. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/09/joseph-smiths-brothers-nauvoo-and-after?lang=eng   Perhaps you can explain what "difficult questions" this raises.   

[juliann]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

That's right.  Polygamy was a commandment by revelation from God regarding the true order of marriage in the eternities.  Not a cover up scheme to hide adultery.  If you start with the wrong premise you will draw the wrong conclusion.  Based on the teachings of Joseph, Brigham, Heber and others, do you really think they would have allowed women guilty of adultery into their families?
It's Pope Gregory and Mary Magdalene all over again.  Falsely labelling righteous wives as little more than prostitutes.  Leaving out the religious side changes movivations incorrectly.

I think I see why she frames the alleged adultery as "seduction" while painting the women as helpless dupes who can be talked into anything merely by being in the same room as a scoundrel. (Why not have them murdering or stealing as well?) Using the correct word to slur the women does not produce the sympathy she needs to create a new [plural] marriage scheme to protect.... adulterers. 

Edited July 4, 2016 by juliann

[Calm]

I love how MegS focuses on only one of the suggested possibilities (early infertilty) as if that was the only reason given for the lack of children in my posts while ignoring the rest, the more common miscarriages and infrequency leading to missing the fertile part of the cycle...might have mentioned a couple a more, memory is vague given I posted first on that a year or two ago.

And how she is completely ignoring dealing with explaining why, in her theory of events, the kind and protective Emma and Joseph rip Eliza's promised husband away from her, the one who is traumatized by not only betrayal, but the loss of a child, and give Holmes instead to a woman who, in her theory, is completely untouched by the drama surrounding her as she is not only a virgin, but remains a virgin for three years of marriage...If Eliza doesn't need a "pretend husband" because she is no longer pregnant, why does a thoroughly committed virgin need one?

And a love poem celebrating eternal marriage (if her theory is right) and most likely celebrating physical love?  Why would Eliza be giving such a poem to two people she knew were in a pretend marriage?  Eliza to Johnathan and Elvira:  'Here is my poem celebrating your wonderful and fulfilling love and promising what great things you have to look forward to as a couple, but don't forget it is all a scam for the public and I don't really mean any of it!  We all know it is really Joseph that gets that with Elvira, not Johnathan.

That MegS dismisses the conversations here as providing little in useful facts is yet another example of how she privileges her own speculation as evidence and fact while ignoring that the structure she has built for her theory of plural marriage as coverup for the rampant promiscuity among the early practioners of plural marriage (save for her chosen Saints of Emma, Joseph, Elvira and Johnathan...though the last apparently has a wandering eye given the women MegS involves him with) lacks any significant foundation.

It is unfortunate that she is so locked into presenting this as history now and won't return to the historical novel genre.  I can understand a desire to do something worthwhile with years of work.  If only she had been more skeptical of her material to begin with.

Edited July 4, 2016 by Calm