Reluctant Polygamist: Preface

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Thanks.

Yes, but it doesn't support what Meg states as fact regarding the medicine.  The source that Nevo provided only states that Clift was offered the medicine.

And then Meg jumps to this conclusion:

"In the case of Mary Clift, Gustavus Hills only slept with her the one time, and she was given the contraceptive medicine, and she still conceived. So this matter of people conceiving children when sex happens isn’t just something particular to my forebears."

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, but it doesn't support what Meg states as fact regarding the medicine.  The source that Nevo provided only states that Clift was offered the medicine.

And then Meg jumps to this conclusion:

"In the case of Mary Clift, Gustavus Hills only slept with her the one time, and she was given the contraceptive medicine, and she still conceived. So this matter of people conceiving children when sex happens isn’t just something particular to my forebears."

You are correct.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Just. STOP. Here is another CFR. I've seen the liberties you have taken with her poetry,  insisting ...with no training or original document... that she scratched out and changed letters to enable your slandering her. 

 

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I had to stop reading over this thread and Meg's posts because the CFR's I could have requested were piling up.  It's astounding what she states as fact and then just seems to ignore requests for documents or references.

Maybe I withdrew my inappropriate label too soon.

Between Meg saying that Joseph only married his plural wives to save them from their sins and seductions and Radke-Moss's recent paper claiming Joseph only married Eliza because nobody else would have her after a gang rape it seems like reducing plural marriage to a pity-date is the new trend.
Joseph married his wives because of D&C 132 (and the earlier revelations on the subject).  And because he was commanded to.

We hate polygamy so let's try to turn Joseph into some kind of folk hero who only married women to save them from their fornication and out of pity, and planned to stay celibate, never because he wanted to marry them, or because it was a commandment, or to raise a righteous seed.
Then we can blame Brigham for corrupting the practice.

HIstorical hokum.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We hate polygamy so let's try to turn Joseph into some kind of folk hero who only married women to save them from their fornication and out of pity, and planned to stay celibate, never because he wanted to marry them, or because it was a commandment, or to raise a righteous seed.

This.  But it gets worse.  According to Meg, Joseph intended to consummate his plural marriages but just never got around to doing this because he was killed (even though she admits he spent the night with some of them and slept with some).  Crazy stuff!

.

Edited June 24, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

Just now, ALarson said:

This.  But it gets worse.  According to Meg, Joseph intended to consummate his plural marriages but just never got around to doing this because he was killed.  

So then...the only incentive behind falsely accusing his plural wives of being fornicators and adulterers is what?
To make him seem even MORE righteous by comparison to his wives?

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Maybe I withdrew my inappropriate label too soon.

Between Meg saying that Joseph only married his plural wives to save them from their sins and seductions and Radke-Moss's recent paper claiming Joseph only married Eliza because nobody else would have her after a gang rape it seems like reducing plural marriage to a pity-date is the new trend.
Joseph married his wives because of D&C 132 (and the earlier revelations on the subject).  And because he was commanded to.

We hate polygamy so let's try to turn Joseph into some kind of folk hero who only married women to save them from their fornication and out of pity, and planned to stay celibate, never because he wanted to marry them, or because it was a commandment, or to raise a righteous seed.
Then we can blame Brigham for corrupting the practice.

HIstorical hokum.

Well when you refer to someone who married 30+ wives as a reluctant polygamist you better have a good explanation.  Ok, she might not have the best explanation but she's trying.  If Brigham approach the Brotherton lady about marrying him in 1841 I wonder how reluctant he was.  At least Joseph waited a coupe to a few years before he started in on it. 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

So then...the only incentive behind falsely accusing his plural wives of being fornicators and adulterers is what?
To make him seem even MORE righteous by comparison to his wives?

Well, these women were weak sinners who'd been seduced by Bennett and His Strikers. 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, these women were weak sinners who'd been seduced by Bennett and His Strikers. 

Then Joseph really would be in violation of D&C 132 for marrying them.  Pretty sure he knew better than to marry fornicators and adulterers.

[juliann]

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, these women were weak sinners who'd been seduced by Bennett and His Strikers. 

I'm going to say it again. It is so disheartening to see these incredible women being thrown under the bus at every turn because of some idea it preserves JS's character. If he is half the man he is made out to be he would be disgusted. And to what end? All these theories meant to salvage JS do not eliminate the problem. All that is being accomplished is saying he is a good guy because he only did something "bad" a few times. (And yes, those who are trying to minimize the sex think it is very very bad, obviously. Only second to murder and all?) So they create a situation where hey, he has done nothing wrong. See, he only murdered three people instead of a dozen!    What the heck are they thinking? The only way to salvage this is to make the women active agents while admitting the obvious. Instead we get those who insist women are being passed around from husband to husband with their virtue measured by how many days they put between each husband....or what we see here where they are hapless whores in need of rescue. I so hope the current digitizing of women's records will add more insight and do away with the out of control guessing based on individual ideology.

 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Maybe I withdrew my inappropriate label too soon.

Between Meg saying that Joseph only married his plural wives to save them from their sins and seductions and Radke-Moss's recent paper claiming Joseph only married Eliza because nobody else would have her after a gang rape it seems like reducing plural marriage to a pity-date is the new trend.
Joseph married his wives because of D&C 132 (and the earlier revelations on the subject).  And because he was commanded to.

We hate polygamy so let's try to turn Joseph into some kind of folk hero who only married women to save them from their fornication and out of pity, and planned to stay celibate, never because he wanted to marry them, or because it was a commandment, or to raise a righteous seed.
Then we can blame Brigham for corrupting the practice.

HIstorical hokum.

It's all variations on the "only married widows" theme. I'm not sure why it would make sense to anyone why taking on extra wives would be an act of charity in the first place. Normally when we encounter widows or victims, there are much more appropriate avenues of consolation than taking them on as an extra wife. President Monson managed to assist hundreds of widows without marrying a single one. 

[jkwilliams]

37 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'm going to say it again. It is so disheartening to see these incredible women being thrown under the bus at every turn because of some idea it preserves JS's character. If he is half the man he is made out to be he would be disgusted. And to what end? All these theories meant to salvage JS do not eliminate the problem. All that is being accomplished is saying he is a good guy because he only did something "bad" a few times. (And yes, those who are trying to minimize the sex think it is very very bad, obviously. Only second to murder and all?) So they create a situation where hey, he has done nothing wrong. See, he only murdered three people instead of a dozen!    What the heck are they thinking? The only way to salvage this is to make the women active agents while admitting the obvious. Instead we get those who insist women are being passed around from husband to husband with their virtue measured by how many days they put between each husband....or what we see here where they are hapless whores in need of rescue. I so hope the current digitizing of women's records will add more insight and do away with the out of control guessing based on individual ideology.

Yes, I don't understand the need to throw these women under the bus. If there were any evidence that they had done something "illicit," that would be one thing, but there is nothing of the kind, and it has to be invented by stringing together suppositions. The contortions engaged in to try and make Eliza Snow a victim of Bennett's "sex ring" are simply appalling.

Quote

Eliza Roxy Snow (m. 29 June 1842): We do not know when Eliza learned about “plurality,” other than that it occurred in Nauvoo. Sometime in 1842 Eliza penned a poem titled “The Bride’s Avowal” that concludes “nought but thy approving look is happiness to me. I would not sell they confidence, for all the pearls that strew the ocean’s bed or all the gems that sparkle in Peru.” 19 This poem would be published in August 1842, a time when the only possible interpretation was that Snow was proclaiming herself Joseph’s plural wife. This publication coincided with Eliza being asked to leave the home of Sarah Cleveland, where she had been staying. Such a poem could only have been inserted into the paper by someone wishing to harm Joseph, implying that Eliza had presented to poem to someone previously involved in Bennett’s group engaging in illicit intercourse. Eliza would attest that she became Joseph’s wife on June 29, shortly after Bennett’s departure from Nauvoo, with Sarah Cleveland as witness and Brigham Young officiating. Wilhelm Wyl would assert in 1885 that Snow had become pregnant with Bennett’s child, an assertion Snow would never openly deny.

So, Eliza never denied an assertion that Wilhelm Wyl never made, so obviously she had been pregnant with Bennett's child. 

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's all variations on the "only married widows" theme. I'm not sure why it would make sense to anyone why taking on extra wives would be an act of charity in the first place. Normally when we encounter widows or victims, there are much more appropriate avenues of consolation than taking them on as an extra wife. President Monson managed to assist hundreds of widows without marrying a single one. 

True.
The entire alternate motivations for polygamy is a wild goose chase relying on manipulating and stretching the facts.

Joseph lived plural marriage.
Plural marriage meant multiple wives.
Husbands and wives had relations.
He lived it because:

• God commanded it by revelation
• God revealed doctrines and theology relating to the practice

Polygamy was never about charity as a primary purpose, although I'm sure it was sometimes a side benefit.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

So, Eliza never denied an assertion that Wilhelm Wyl never made, so obviously she had been pregnant with Bennett's child. 

Wait, I'm confused.  Meg stated:

"I lay out the reason I suspect Elvira Annie Cowles was Dr. Bennett's beloved"

 So, she believes that Bennett got Eliza pregnant, but loved Elvira?

.

Edited June 24, 2016 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U0VLR-EWgs

Meg, I have been going back to that scene in my mind, the movie "The Mirror Has Two Faces" with Barbra Streisand and Jeff Bridges, in the scene where he said he wasn't going to have sex with her, he wanted to see if he could go without or something.  It's in this clip at 1:39 in.

Could these women that married Joseph Smith have felt the same way?  They're married but can't consummate it?  I'm against these marriages in the first place, but if it happened and they think it's right, then I think they're going to want to consummate it, if they're in love.

ETA: I decided to watch the movie on Amazon, I think it was both of their decision not to consummate it.  So hey, maybe that's what JS and his wives did. But it ends up that they do make love in the end. 

Edited June 24, 2016 by Tacenda

[Meg Stout]

Hi folks,

Thank you for your time and energy.

I had forgotten that the Mary Clift document specified so graphically that the medicine was for abortion. So maybe it wasn't a failure of the medicine. Maybe she decided not to take it. But the point is that we have two instances where seduced women discuss being offered medicine to either abort or prevent the possible pregnancy caused by illicit intercourse.

The Mary Clift testimony mentioning medicine has already been shared. When Catherine Fuller talked about trying to refuse Dr. Bennett, suggesting it would be scandalous were she to become pregnant out of wedlock, she then was recorded as saying “I understood that he would give me medicine to prevent it.” The citation is:

Catherine Fuller statement before the Nauvoo High Council, LDS Archives MS/d/2375/Box 8/fd. Nauvoo, copied and included in the Valeen T. Avery Papers USU_COLL MSS 316, Box 24, Fd 14, Special Collections and Archives, Utah State University Merrill-Cazier Library, Logan, Utah. Queen Anne’s Lace may have been the medicine Dr. Bennett gave Catherine Fuller.

I see people claiming that this thread and the one about Joseph Smith's Polyandry somehow demonstrate that I am wrong.

I submit that these threads demonstrate that many who participate in this forum think I am wrong. And this thread illustrates that sometimes I say things without all the subjunctive trappings. But this thread does not demonstrate that my core thesis is wrong, only that I am not always able to respond instantaneously with a reference that satisfies an audience already largely determined to find fault.

If the tables were reversed and everyone accepted that Joseph restored Celestial marriage with an allowance for plural marriage, but a terrible sexual heresy had threatened Joseph's people (a scenario that fits the data, unpopular though it is here), then I suspect you would find yourselves similarly unable to prove your points in the face of a hostile audience.

Either way, may God be the one to whom you turn your faces in every act and in every thought.

[jkwilliams]

34 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

Hi folks,

Thank you for your time and energy.

I had forgotten that the Mary Clift document specified so graphically that the medicine was for abortion. So maybe it wasn't a failure of the medicine. Maybe she decided not to take it. But the point is that we have two instances where seduced women discuss being offered medicine to either abort or prevent the possible pregnancy caused by illicit intercourse.

The Mary Clift testimony mentioning medicine has already been shared. When Catherine Fuller talked about trying to refuse Dr. Bennett, suggesting it would be scandalous were she to become pregnant out of wedlock, she then was recorded as saying “I understood that he would give me medicine to prevent it.” The citation is:

Catherine Fuller statement before the Nauvoo High Council, LDS Archives MS/d/2375/Box 8/fd. Nauvoo, copied and included in the Valeen T. Avery Papers USU_COLL MSS 316, Box 24, Fd 14, Special Collections and Archives, Utah State University Merrill-Cazier Library, Logan, Utah. Queen Anne’s Lace may have been the medicine Dr. Bennett gave Catherine Fuller.

I see people claiming that this thread and the one about Joseph Smith's Polyandry somehow demonstrate that I am wrong.

I submit that these threads demonstrate that many who participate in this forum think I am wrong. And this thread illustrates that sometimes I say things without all the subjunctive trappings. But this thread does not demonstrate that my core thesis is wrong, only that I am not always able to respond instantaneously with a reference that satisfies an audience already largely determined to find fault.

If the tables were reversed and everyone accepted that Joseph restored Celestial marriage with an allowance for plural marriage, but a terrible sexual heresy had threatened Joseph's people (a scenario that fits the data, unpopular though it is here), then I suspect you would find yourselves similarly unable to prove your points in the face of a hostile audience.

Either way, may God be the one to whom you turn your faces in every act and in every thought.

You have been asked repeatedly to document your assertions. Given that you have not done so, it is safe to say your thesis is not supported by available documentary evidence. 

[Calm]

My opinion is in regards to your assertions that you and others have provided the original source material that the source material does not in most cases covered here support your claims because you have added substantive speculative interpretation to them.  This has occurred a number of times as has been pointed out on this thread and the other.  It is not a case of references just not being made available before a judgment was made.  

It may be possible your core theory is correct, but it seems to me it is more likely that if we subtract the claims that have been already demonstrated togo beyond what was actually said, there are a lot of holes (that if your blog is any indication of the final product) that leave your core theory without substantive support.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Calm

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Meg Stout said:

But this thread does not demonstrate that my core thesis is wrong, only that I am not always able to respond instantaneously with a reference that satisfies an audience already largely determined to find fault.

What exactly is your "core thesis"?

It appears to be that Joseph had to marry a lot of women to save them from an organized sex ring in Nauvoo (he even had to marry women who were already married).  Then once he married them, he never got around to consummating the marriage because he was martyred before he got the chance.

Is this correct?

Edited June 25, 2016 by JulieM

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

What exactly is your "core thesis"?

It appears to be that Joseph had to marry a lot of women to save them from an organized sex ring in Nauvoo (he even had to marry women who were already married).  Then once he married them, he never got around to consummating the marriage because he was matryed before he got the chance.

Is this correct?

Seems like a fair summary. 

Edited June 24, 2016 by jkwilliams

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So then...the only incentive behind falsely accusing his plural wives of being fornicators and adulterers is what?
To make him seem even MORE righteous by comparison to his wives?

I think Meg struggled when she learned about Joseph's polygamy and she came up with a different version of the real history in order to keep Joseph on a pedestal.  But her new history isn't flattering to him and it most especially isn't flattering to the women involved.  She also can't support her assumptions with sources.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, Meg Stout said:

 

I submit that these threads demonstrate that many who participate in this forum think I am wrong. And this thread illustrates that sometimes I say things without all the subjunctive trappings. But this thread does not demonstrate that my core thesis is wrong, only that I am not always able to respond instantaneously with a reference that satisfies an audience already largely determined to find fault.

If the tables were reversed and everyone accepted that Joseph restored Celestial marriage with an allowance for plural marriage, but a terrible sexual heresy had threatened Joseph's people (a scenario that fits the data, unpopular though it is here), then I suspect you would find yourselves similarly unable to prove your points in the face of a hostile audience.

 

How much error is a reader supposed to overlook to get to the "core?" I don't blame you for leaving given the wake of CFRs you have accumulated but it is very self-serving to dismiss legitimate concern for accuracy to "hostility." 

Your scenerio does not fit "the data" in almost everything you have presented here. When you began this on Millennial* you were openly calling it "historical fiction."  That wouldn't increase acceptance of your assaults on our female ancestors but it would alleviate you from having to provide documentation..

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Meg Stout said:

 

I submit that these threads demonstrate that many who participate in this forum think I am wrong. And this thread illustrates that sometimes I say things without all the subjunctive trappings. But this thread does not demonstrate that my core thesis is wrong, only that I am not always able to respond instantaneously with a reference that satisfies an audience already largely determined to find fault.

If the tables were reversed and everyone accepted that Joseph restored Celestial marriage with an allowance for plural marriage, but a terrible sexual heresy had threatened Joseph's people (a scenario that fits the data, unpopular though it is here), then I suspect you would find yourselves similarly unable to prove your points in the face of a hostile audience.

Either way, may God be the one to whom you turn your faces in every act and in every thought.

Again, you are not only speaking of Joseph, but of all the other women that you have not given clear and irrefutable evidence. Buy doing so, you may be attacking their honor as well as their ancestors (none of which are Joseph's ancestors). These things matter, to them and as members we also have vested interest in the actual truth, not conjuncture. Your book "will" be well received among the critics of the Church and the disaffected, no CFR's, no Scholarly Review...nothing but praise. I would think you would welcome all. You "are not" being thrown under the bus. Everyone here treats everyone else the same, we are all required or encouraged to bring our "A Game". Wish you luck.  

[James Tunney]

34 minutes ago, juliann said:

How much error is a reader supposed to overlook to get to the "core?" I don't blame you for leaving given the wake of CFRs you have accumulated but it is very self-serving to dismiss legitimate concern for accuracy to "hostility." 

Your scenerio does not fit "the data" in almost everything you have presented here. When you began this on Millennial* you were openly calling it "historical fiction."  That wouldn't increase acceptance of your assaults on our female ancestors but it would alleviate you from having to provide documentation..

Meg:

Why all the mental gymnastics? Why not just accept the possibility that Joseph Smith probably had relations with at least some of his polyandrous wives? I don't think anyone here wants those practices to come back but it is a definite possibility that it occurred. So why not just accept it, deal with it, and then move on?

[Meg Stout]

9 hours ago, JulieM said:

I think Meg struggled when she learned about Joseph's polygamy and she came up with a different version of the real history in order to keep Joseph on a pedestal.  But her new history isn't flattering to him and it most especially isn't flattering to the women involved.  She also can't support her assumptions with sources.

Lovely to get to celebrate my husband's birthday and get some sleep.

Stepping back, my core thesis is that God commanded Joseph to restore Celestial marriage with an allowance for plural marriage because it was only through binding families together (even in the cases of remarried widowers) that the family of mankind could be knit together. The Bible, the Book of Mormon, and LDS scripture is replete with this promise that Christ intended to save all mankind, not just the few that would learn of it in this life. Because Joseph was the founding prophet of the restoration, I submit that God told him he had to set the example. While this can be easily inferred from the available documents (e.g., D&C 132:1), it is not more clear than that. So CFR on this point will not produce much more that I've stated. This doesn't invalidate that there are other reasons to practice plural marriage, but I submit that setting the pattern for how the family of mankind was to be sealed together when families were messy was the primary purpose.

Joseph's interaction with Fanny (I'll simply submit the fine work Todd Compton and Don Bradley have done as the reason to consider the interaction a marriage) could have been consummated, but it wasn't sufficient to demonstrate that plural marriage was acceptable. I submit this is sufficiently well understood that I won't get a CFR.

Joseph's interaction with Louisa is usually considered a marriage and is often considered to have been consummated. But she lived on the other side of the river, and the only one who knew about it (from documentation) was apparently her brother-in-law and whoever in Bennett's camp got told the information. Bennett then cited L***** B***** as one of the wives of Joseph Smith in his book, History of the Saints. I submit this is sufficiently well understood that I won't get a CFR.

Per Catherine Fuller, Dr. Bennett was the first to seduce her, and she gives a date of mid-July 1841 for when she slept with George Thatcher in her testimony before the High Council. Because George Thatcher was not one of the two individuals (Bennett and Chauncy Higbee) Joseph was trying to discredit in 1844, that portion of Catherine's testimony was not included in the newspaper extract that was published. This also means that this key date for Dr. Bennett's illicit interactions was not put into the public arena. The reference for the totality of the women's testimonies and the information that Catherine was initially seduced by Bennett and then slept with George Thatcher in mid-July 1841 is: Catherine Fuller statement before the Nauvoo High Council, LDS Archives MS/d/2375/Box 8/fd. Nauvoo, copied and included in the Valeen T. Avery Papers USU_COLL MSS 316, Box 24, Fd 14, Special Collections and Archives, Utah State University Merrill-Cazier Library, Logan, Utah.

By the summer of 1841 the sexual heresy had spread widely. Orange Wight talks about learning in the summer of 1841 that John Higbee (uncle to Chauncy and Francis Higbee) had two wives, and says the young girls were calling one another "spirituals." See http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/OWight.html

We have a remembered statement from Don Carlos before his death, from Ebenezer Robinson (working with Don Carlos and Benjamin Winchester on the Times and Seasons) In 1890 Ebenezer Robinson would recount a time when Don Carlos said, “Any man who will teach and practice the doctrine of spiritual wifery will go to hell, I don’t care if it is my brother Joseph.” Robinson added, “[Don Carlos] was a bitter oppose of the ‘spiritual wife’ doctrine.”   Robinson, Ebenezer, The Return, Volume 2, Number 7 (July 1890): 302, see also Volume 2, Number 6 (June 1890): 287.

By October 1841, per Catherine Fuller, she became aware that people were claiming Joseph Smith taught that illicit intercourse. In the same set of statements already referenced above, Catherine would explain in May 1842:

"Sometime last winter I became alarmed at my conduct and told him [Dr. Bennett] I did not wish his company any longer. He told me that the heads of the Church were conducting in that manner ^and specified Joseph’s name^ I think this happened last October. He said that Joseph taught and conducted in the above manner.

“He also was with Mrs. Shindle now living beyond Ramus and also with the two Miss Nymans...”

“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, that the heads of the church now practicing the same things – named Joseph Smith – he urged this doctrine – was there about the first of February about 8 in the evening."

So by October 1841, several people were claiming that Joseph Smith taught the doctrine that there was no harm in having unlawful intercourse.

It is only after we know that this was happening that Joseph marries (covenants with, whatever) Zina Huntington. The mention that the angel came bearing a sword and threatening Joseph. Mary Elizabeth Lightner's account is the most expansive, though she obfuscates the dates by merely stating that this was between the years 1834 and 1842. Given the other accounts mentioning the Angel and sword, it is clear the sword incident happened in late 1841, before Joseph married Zina.

“An angel came to him [Joseph Smith] and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle, he would slay him. Joseph said he talked to him soberly about it, and told him it was an abomination and quoted scripture to him. He said in the Book of Mormon it was an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, and they were to adhere to these things except the Lord speak... [The Prophet said ‘the] angel came to me three times between the years of 1834 and 1842 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me.’ ” [1905 BYU Testimony of Mary Elizabeth Lightner, online 10 Mar 2014 at http://user.xmission.com/~plporter/lds/merlbyu.htm.]

If Mary Elizabeth Lightner's account is correct, that Joseph argued with the Angel bearing the sword in late 1841, then it is not credible that those claiming Joseph taught the acceptability of unlawful intercourse were correct.

At any rate, please consider anyone who has claimed I had any other thesis than this to have had a CFR called on them.

[Meg Stout]

By the way, tried to edit the above to add Don Carlos' death date (September 1841), but I am asked to give a reason (fine) and when I click save nothing happens. Not sure which end the technical difficult is on, but please forgive me for uncorrected grammar errors.