Reluctant Polygamist: Preface

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

William Smith told them about spiritual wifery, not plural marriage. After the events of 1845, there is no reason Brigham or Heber would have defiled the doctrine of plural marriage by associating it in any way with William Smith.

I still don't see strong evidence that spiritual wifery and plural marriage are two separate and distinct teachings like you and some others propose.  There may have been some differences in how individuals interpreted and practiced polygamy (or extra monogamous relationships) during this early Nauvoo time period, but to draw a clear distinction between the two terms, i.e. spiritual wifery is the unsanctioned way, and plural marriage is the Joseph approved method, when there isn't concrete evidence to do so is problematic to me. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

C/P from the article I linked:

William Smith, youngest brother of Joseph Smith, and an Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,[4][5] in or near Seneca Lake, New York on December 11, 1830, and upon his return to Painesville discovered that his wife had also become a convert.,[6] and briefly Patriarch to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), wrote a little-known pamphlet in late 1844, called The Elders' Pocket Companion, explaining his own views on the differences between "the Spiritual Wife System" and "plurality of wives". Smith explained that spiritual wifery was the practice of: (1) an Latter Day Saint woman standing as living proxy for her husband's previous civil wife (or wives) to be "sealed" to him for all eternity by the power of Latter Day Saint priesthood, and (2) unmarried Latter Day Saint women being sealed plurally to Latter Day Saint men during the "Millennium" (the post-apocalyptic thousand year reign of Jesus on the earth). The "plurality of wives doctrine" however, Smith wrote, was simply biblical polygamy as practiced by the "ancient Prophets and Patriarchs". Citing the Book of Mormon, Smith ended his pamphlet emphasizing that the Book of Mormon, while generally proscribing biblical-type polygamy, does include the caveat, "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up a seed unto me, I WILL COMMAND MY PEOPLE" (emphasis is Smith's).[7]

Yes, I read that. A pamphlet he wrote in late 1844 tells us nothing about what he told Brigham and Heber in 1841-42.

[Tacenda]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Yes, I read that. A pamphlet he wrote in late 1844 tells us nothing about what he told Brigham and Heber in 1841-42.

Oh, gotcha!  I knew there was something more to it. My google search was too easy...ya win some and lose some I guess, as far as having answers! I'll let the historians such as your self proceed while I read and learn!

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Tacenda said:

Oh, gotcha!  I knew there was something more to it. My google search was too easy...ya win some and lose some I guess, as far as having answers! I'll let the historians such as your self proceed while I read and learn!

I'm not a historian, just someone who is getting increasingly tired of unfounded conjecture being passed off as history.

[Tacenda]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I'm not a historian, just someone who is getting increasingly tired of unfounded conjecture being passed off as history.

I count you as a reliable well read person of church history!

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I count you as a reliable well read person of church history!

Thank you, but there are many people here who know a lot more than I do. I just believe that, if we're going to talk about church history, we need to do it fairly and honestly based on documentary evidence. Maybe it's a weakness, but it's hard for me to sit by and watch someone do violence to the historical record.

[Meg Stout]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

I'm fairly certain that you claimed they believed sexual intercourse caused cholera, not just sexual sin. Married people aren't sinning. So it is not consistent with what you said. I questioned that claim earlier and you have yet to provide any example of a widespread belief that sexual intercourse caused cholera. What I did find online was very common usage of "social intercourse" being a factor in transmission of the disease. Yet you now say there is research on this claim. So.... CFR.  We would love to see that research saying sexual intercourse was believed to cause cholera.

 

Hi juliann,

I finally found the original source that caused me to suggest that excessive sexuality even within marriage was considered to be associated with cholera:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/wellness/1990/09/11/the-ravages-of-cholera/c819a8bf-faba-4989-b7ad-974e4a22b747/

The author was Thomas V. DiBacco, then a historian at American University.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Meg Stout
Correct name of author.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

By December the likely person conveying the information regarding spiritual wifery would have been William Smith, assuring Brigham and others that this was what Joseph taught. We see this in how the Nyman sisters were eventually persuaded to yield.

Nyman sisters difn't see Joseph every day.  There is no reason to suppose that Brigham wouldn't have doublechecked with Joseph especially given his reported shock about it.  There is nothing to indicate his relationship with either Bennett or William Smith was confidential or deep.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

Hi Calm,

Where you not aware that this is a common exMormon perception of Brigham's action in dealing Martha to himself after her death?

Are you an ex-Mormon?  Is there some obligation for you to write in such a sensational way that accuses Young of rape?

Who is choosing what words you are using?  Are you possessed or an intelligent, capable free agent?  As a writer, you should be perfectly capable of explaining others' viewpoints without indulging in vulgar and disrepectful language yourself.  If you aren't, I suggest you choose another hobby, but if you continue writing at least quit trying to evade responsibilty like a child by trying to shift the blame for your own choices to someone else.

[Calm]

MegS,

You still haven't addressed yet why a virgin (Elvira) who never intended to consummate any of her marriages out of loyalty needed a husband so much she took one from a brokenhearted suffering promised bride (Eliza) in your theory.

[Meg Stout]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

MegS,

You still haven't addressed yet why a virgin (Elvira) who never intended to consummate any of her marriages out of loyalty needed a husband so much she took one from a brokenhearted suffering promised bride (Eliza) in your theory.

Hi Calm,

My hypothesis is that Elvira was the young woman Bennett had wished to marry. I point that out a couple of times in the chapters regarding Bennett. I am perfectly happy to cede that dubious honor if someone has another credible candidate as the young woman Bennett had wished to marry.

The evidence for this is circumstantial, obviously. But she was a younger-than Bennett woman living in the Smith household from the time Bennett arrived in Nauvoo. So they were housemates for the portion of the 39 weeks Bennett was presumably living in the home of Joseph Smith from August 1840 to the spring of 1841. The 39 week estimate is derived from the note about the monies Bennett gave Joseph in December 1843.

Joseph indicated that he ended the relationship between Bennett and the woman he intended to marry at some point after receiving confirmation from George Miller that Bennett was a scoundrel, as an earlier communication had conveyed. However the earlier deceptions were subsumed in Bennett's baptism. The remaining item of concern was Bennett's marriage, which was still in effect.

The Prices and I think Brian Hales presume that the young woman was the same person Bennett had ruined. However a close reading of Joseph Smith's original statement the Times & Seasons in the summer of 1842 shows that they were not the same person.

I suggest that the fact that Bennett was sent away from the Smith household suggests that the young woman he had hoped to marry was living in the Smith household.

In November 1842 Lester Brooks wrote a report to Joseph Smith regarding the Kirtland Stake, where Lester was a counselor. In that letter Lester concludes with a specific note regarding Elvira. When the letter was published in the paper, Lester's name was printed as "Justin" Brooks. Odd though it was, I don't know why Lester's letter would have caused concern, though it is after this letter that we see Joseph reach out to his first plural wife in Kirtland (Almera Johnson, sister of the wife of Almon Babbit, Kirtland Stake President).

I had heard that Elvira's name is not on the affidavits testifying to Bennett's villainy. However those affidavits, if still extant, would be in the papers of Governor Carlin.

At any rate, the two most compelling bits of circumstantial evidence are Elvira's presence in the Smith household during the timeframe when Bennett wished to marry a young woman and the fact that Joseph Smith performed a public marriage involving Elvira in December 1842 that family and a neighbor would characterize as not a real marriage until after the death of Joseph Smith. Given that there were unwed mothers without benefit of a public husband in that year (Sarah Peak Noon, Mary Clift, Lucina Roberts Johnson) highlights the odd nature of the marriage Joseph Smith performed between Elvira and Jonathan.