View source for Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Nauvoo Polygamy/Chapter 2

{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
|title=[[../../]]
|author=George D. Smith
|noauthor=
|section=[[../|Index of Claims]], Chapter 2 (pp. 52-107)
|previous=[[../Chapter 1a|Chapter 1 (pp. 26-51)]]
|next=[[../Chapter 2a|Chapter 2 (pp. 108-158)]]
|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
}}
__NOTOC__
=Claims made in "Chapter 2" (pp. 52-107)=
{{BeginClaimsTable}}
|
====53====
||
*Referring ''again'' to the Whitney letter, the author notes that Joseph "recommended his friend, whose seventeen-year-old daughter he had just married, should 'come a little a head, and nock…at the window.'"
||
*{{InternalContradiction|p. 65: "Joseph requested that Sarah Ann Whitney visit him and ‘nock at the window...."}}
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/"Love letters"]]
*[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources&mdash;Letter to Whitneys]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*[[../../Romance]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
*The author commonly exploits the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis) presentist fallacy] in the matter of Joseph's wives' ages.
*[[Polygamy book/Age of wives|Age of wives]]
*[[../../Presentism]]
||
*Smith, Letter to "Brother and Sister [Newel K.] Whitney, and &c.," Nauvoo, Illinois, Aug. 18, 1842, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}}
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Age_wives}}
|-
|

====53====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|The prophet then poured out his heart, writing to his newest wife: "My feelings are so strong for you…now is the time to afford me succour….I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now."}}
||
*Joseph is speaking '''to all three Whitneys''', and the author again distorts the letter as at the beginning of the book.
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/"Love letters"]]
*[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources&mdash;Letter to Whitneys]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*[[../../Romance]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*Whitney letter, Aug. 18, 1842.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}}
|-
|

====53====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Emma Hale, Joseph's wife of fifteen years, had left his side just twenty-four hours earlier.  Now Joseph declared that he was "lonesome," and he pleaded with Sarah Ann to visit him under cover of darkness.  After all, they had been married just three weeks earlier.}}
||
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language|Loaded language]] trying to make Joseph appear sexually voracious and insensitive to Emma.
*As stated in the letter, the reason for the visit was to perform ordinances.
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/"Love letters"]]
*[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources&mdash;Letter to Whitneys]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*[[../../Romance]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*Whitney letter, Aug. 18, 1842.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}}
|-
|

====54====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|“Did Sarah Ann keep this rendezvous on that humid summer night? Unfortunately, the documentary record is silent.” But “the letter survives to illuminate the complexity of Smith’s life in Nauvoo."}}
||
*The documentary record is not silent, however, as to why Joseph sought a visit with his plural wife and her parents: to “tell you all my plans . . . [and] to git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c.” 
*Small wonder that Joseph didn’t want a hostile Emma present while trying to administer what he and the Whitneys regarded as sacred ordinances. And, it is unsurprising that he considered a single private room sufficient for the purposes for which he summoned his plural wife and her parents.
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/"Love letters"]]
*[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources&mdash;Letter to Whitneys]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*[[../../Romance]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}}
|-
|

====54====
||
*The author states that what interested him the most was how Joseph "went about courting…these women."
||
*No evidence that Joseph did any courting.  He often used intermediaries.
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*[[../../Mind reading]]
*[[../../Romance]]
*[[../../Assumptions and presumptions]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Womanizing and romance}}
|-
|
====55====
||
*It is claimed that when polygamy was officially abandoned in 1890, that "what previously had been called 'celestial marriage' was subtly redefined to specify something new: marriage performed in LDS temples for this life and for an expected eternal afterlife."
||
*The claimed "redefinition" was present from the very beginning of plural marriage.  The emphasis changed:
** [[Polygamy_book/Introduction_of_the_eternal_marriage|Plural marriage vs. celestial marriage in the beginning]]
** [[Polygamy a requirement for exaltation]]

||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Necessary_for_salvation}}
|-
|

====55====
||
*Plural marriage is claimed to have originally been a "key principle" of exaltation, "but by adaption, celestial marriage was still said to be required, only now it meant monogamy rather than polygamy."

||
*[[Polygamy a requirement for exaltation]]
||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Necessary_for_salvation}}
|-
|

====55====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Despite his crowded daily schedule, the prophet interrupted other activities for secret liaisons with women and girls…."}}
||
*This is pure assumption by the author. He notes elsewhere that Joseph never even recorded anything about his plural marriages, much less anything about "secret liaisons with women and girls."
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Womanizing and romance}}
|-
|
====55====
||
*The author notes that Joseph "assured the women and their families that such unions were not only sanctioned but were demanded by heaven and fulfilled the ethereal principle of 'restoration.'"
||
*Does not tell us that Joseph had the women get their OWN witness.
**[[Divine manifestations to plural wives and families]]
*Women could and did turn Joseph down with no consequences.
**[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Did women turn Joseph down]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
||	
*No source provided.
|-
|

====56====
||
*The author assumes that "[t]here may have been even more wives and plural children."
||
*Anything ''might'' have happened.  The author provides no evidence.
*This is the [[Logical_fallacies#Appeal_to_probability|fallacy of probability]].
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Fallacy of probability}}
|-
|

====57====
||
*The author notes that ''History of the Church'' says nothing about Nauvoo on the day of Louisa Beaman's marriage to Joseph.
||
*[[Censorship_and_revision_of_LDS_history]]
*[[../../Censorship]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}}
|-
|
====63====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"As will be seen, conjugal visits appear furtive and constantly shadowed by the threat of disclosure."}}
||
*This is pure assumption on the part of the author&mdash;he provides no such evidence save his repeated distortion of the Whitney letter.
||	
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}}
|-
|
====65====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|“when Joseph requested that Sarah Ann Whitney visit him and ‘nock at the window,’ he reassured his new young wife that Emma would not be there, telegraphing his fear of discovery if Emma happened upon his trysts.”}}
||
*{{InternalContradiction|p. 55: The invitation was to Sarah and her parents&mdash;[Joseph] "recommended his friend, whose seventeen-year-old daughter he had just married, should 'come a little a head, and nock…at the window.'"}}
*[[../../Contradictions]]
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/"Love letters"]]
*[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources&mdash;Letter to Whitneys]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*[[../../Mind reading]]
*[[../../Romance]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No citation given
*{{HistoricalError}}
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}}
|-
|

====65====
||
*The author claims that "[o]ne of the instrumental people in the inauguration of plural marriage was John [C.] Bennett…."
||
*A huge leap, presuming that Bennett's adulteries were ever sanctioned by Joseph, or had anything to do with plural marriage.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] 
||
*Author's opinion.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}	
|-
|

====65====
||
*The author notes that in 1841, John C. Bennett was Joseph Smith's "closest confident." {{attn}}
||
*Ignores that Joseph began to distrust him for cause long before their public rupture.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||	

* No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====65====
||
*It is claimed that Joseph was "sharing power" with Bennett.
||
*Bennett's power was mainly secular.  He did little in the religious realm.  Joseph had wanted to be relieved of temporal responsibilities, and Bennett was available.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]	
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|
====65====
||
*It is claimed that in 1842, John C. Bennett spoke out against Joseph "and was soon stripped of his offices and titles."
||
*Bennett was guilty of serial immoralities, and had been disciplined on multiple occasions.  He only "spoke out" once he learned that he was to be stripped of membership in the Church.
*The author has cause and effect reversed, perhaps because he doesn't want us to know of the overwhelming evidence of Bennett's guilt.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]	
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|
====65====
||
*It is claimed that John C. Bennett and Joseph each "accused the other of immoral behavior."
||
*Bennett was accused by far more people, over a far greater length of time, of "immoral behavior."  Many of his accusers were not LDS and had nothing to do with the Mormons.  
*Bennett only began to accuse Joseph once his own crimes were repeatedly revealed.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====65====
||
*The author attempts to rehabilitate John C. Bennett by claiming: "While some of his claims may have been exaggerations, much of what he reported can be confirmed by other eyewitness accounts."
||
*Many of Bennett's claims are clearly false.
*The author uses Bennett uncritically, and naively.
*The things which Bennett can "confirm" are mostly things like names of people Joseph married.
*Bennett also clearly forged some material from others.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}	
|-
|

====65====
||
*Yet more attempt to make Bennett a credible witness: "Even though his statements must be weighed critically, he cannot be merely dismissed as an unfriendly source who fabricated scandal."
||
*The author never does this weighing for us.
*Much of what he writes, after analysis, must be dismissed as fabrication or exaggeration, however.
*Even anti-Mormon authors warned of Bennett's problems:
::"There is, no doubt, much truth in Bennett's book…but no statement that he makes can be received with confidence."{{ref|stenhouse1}}
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*Author's opinion.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}	
|-
|

====65====
||
*The author claims that "Bennett had an ambitious but colorful background."
||
*This hides a mountain of evidence about Bennett's pre-LDS behavior, including:
**repeatedly using others' names to fraudulently support the establishment of medical colleges
**selling bogus medical diplomas
**selling bogus diplomas in other fields (e.g., law)
**lying and misrepresentation
**serial adulteries and infidelities
**abandonment of wife and children
*[[John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====66-67====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Writing on March 23, 1846, Bennett claimed to have known 'Joseph better than any other man living for at least fourteen months!'….Bennett was well positioned to know all about any behind-the-scenes transactions.}}
||
*The author here accepts Bennett uncritically.
*Despite his claim, he was never part of the inner circle which received the highest temple ordinances introduced by Joseph.  Bennett and Rigdon "were conspicuously absent"  when Joseph Smith spoke to those who would be among the first to receive the full endowment necessary "to finish their work and prevent imposition" by Satan. 
*Bennett had secular influence, but relatively little to do with religious matters in Nauvoo:
:"Thus, the considerable embarrassment to Joseph Smith and Mormonism which some have inferred from Bennett's alleged duping of the Mormons is cast in a new light because Bennett himself so effectively refutes his own claim that he was a close confidant of Joseph Smith.  Unwittingly, Bennett indisputably demonstrates that he was neither directly involved with the endowment, eternal marriage, nor plural marriage—the most significant private theological developments during Bennett's stay in Nauvoo.{{ref|ehat1}}
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
|| 
*Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 56.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====68====
||
*The author claims that Joseph is merely “feigning impartiality” before going on to practice “undemocratic block voting.”
||
*Block voting is not undemocratic—many interest groups vote ''en masse'' for candidates which will meet their needs.
*Joseph was not feigning when he said, "We care not a fig for a Whig or Democrat….We shall go for our friends." (p. 68)  He was indicating that party made no difference to the Saints; what mattered is who would agree to defend them.
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Bloc voting}}
|-
|

====69====
||
*The author notes that Joseph was apparently "undeterred" by reports of a negative assessment of Bennett, and proceeded to name him Assistant President of the Church.
||
*Joseph knew from personal experience that "it is no uncommon thing for good men to be evil spoken against," and did nothing precipitous. 
*The accusations against Bennett gained credence when Joseph learned of his attempts to persuade a young woman "that he intended to marry her."  Joseph dispatched Hyrum Smith and William Law to make inquiries, and in early July 1841 he learned that Bennett had a wife and children living in the east.  Non-LDS sources confirmed Bennett's infidelity: one noted that he "heard it from almost every person in town that [his wife] left him in consequence of his ill treatment of her home and his intimacy with other women."  Another source reported that Bennett's wife "declared that she could no longer live with him…it would be the seventh family that he had parted during their union." 
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
* No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}  	
|-
|

====69====
||
*It is noted that John C. Bennett was Assistant President of the Church.
||
*Sidney Rigdon, a counselor in the First Presidency, was frequently ill.  On April 8, "John C. Bennett was presented, with the First Presidency, as Assistant President until President Rigdon's health should be restored."   Modern readers should be cautious in projecting the role of the current First Presidency on Joseph's day.  In the modern Church, the First Presidency is almost always composed of two apostles who have extensive experience in ecclesiastical affairs called to serve with the President.  In Joseph's day, this was not the case.  Most of Joseph's counselors in the First Presidency were to betray his trust, including Jesse Gause, Frederick G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon, William Law and John C. Bennett. While some of these counselors received keys, Bennett did not.    None were apostles prior to their call.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
*[[../../Presentism]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====69====
||
*It is claimed that John C. Bennett had religious influence by being Assistant President of the Church.
||
*[This is not stated baldly, but some readers might be confused.]	
*With few exceptions, Bennett "played little role in church conferences.  There might have been an unofficial division of labor between Bennett and Smith.  Smith handled church affairs; Bennett took the lead in secular matters."
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====70====
||
*The author claims that Joseph Smith and John C. Bennett remained confidants until about March the next year (1842)
||
* Bennett was confronted with the charges mentioned above in the summer of 1841.
*When confronted with these charges, Bennett broke down and confessed.  Emma's nephew, Lorenzo D. Wasson, claimed to have been upstairs and heard Joseph "give J. C. Bennett a tremendous flagellation for practicing iniquity under the base pretence of authority from the heads of the church."  Claiming to be mortified at the idea of public censure, Bennett took poison in a suicide gesture, but recovered. 
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
*{{HistoricalError}}
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====70====
||
*It is claimed that there seemed to be "no office or honor within reach that Smith did not hasten to grant to Bennett."
||
*This is false: Bennett was never inducted into the "Quorum of the Anointed"—those who were receiving the temple endowment from Joseph (see above, [[../Chapter_2#66-67|66-67]]).
*He was also never made an apostle.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*{{HistoricalError}}	
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====70====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Zina Huntington, who married Henry Jacobs instead but then reconsidered seven months later in response to Joseph's restated interest."}}
||
*Zina said the Lord [[Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations#Zina_Huntington|told her what to do]].
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Zina and Henry Jacobs|Zina and Henry Jacobs]]
*[[Joseph Smith and polyandry]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====70-71====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Seemingly impatient, Joseph soon after married Zina's sister, Presendia, who was also already married."}}
||
*[[Joseph Smith and polyandry]]
*[[../../Mind reading]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====71====
||
*The author notes that "Bennett alleged that during the summer and fall of 1841, Smith made unsuccessful advances toward Apostle Orson Pratt's wife, Sarah."
||
*The author does not tell us that Sarah and Bennett were probably having an affair, as witnessed by LDS and non-LDS witnesses, and a plausible time-line.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====71====
||
*It is notes that "[w]hatever the accuracy of the quotes [i.e., Bennett's claims] the two men [Orson and Joseph] quarrelled…."
||
*The author here avoids the necessity of dealing with the problems in Bennett's account.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
|-
|
====71====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"…the important aspect of this incident is that it tells us less about Bennett's motive in recalling this dispute and more about Orson's willingness to support his wife over his religious leader…."}}
||
*"Recalling" assumes that Bennett's account is truthful, and not fabricated.  This has not been demonstrated.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====71====
||
*The author concludes that Joseph believe that Sarah Pratt "had been wrong to reject him—and that she had failed the test. The defiance she exhibited ultimately led to alienation with her husband…."
||
*The author again says nothing about Sarah and Bennett's affair, which probably had something to do with her "alienation."
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
* No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====72====
||
*The author notes that Orson Pratt eventually accepted Joseph's explanation "that he merely wanted to test Sarah's obedience, and was not seriously courting this married woman."
||
*The author does not tell us that Orson eventually believed Sarah and Bennett had misled him, saying he was first informed by "a wicked source, from those disaffected, but as soon as he learned the truth he was satisfied."{{ref|pratt1}} He presents no evidence for what explanation Joseph gave Orson, or what Orson believed.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====72====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Meanwhile, Bennett seems to have followed his leader in courting several women himself."}}
||
*The author is here presuming that Bennett imitated Joseph.
*Bennett was also involved in operating a prostitution ring and house of ill repute in Nauvoo.{{ref|bennett2}} 
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
* No source provided
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====72====
||
*The author claims that John C. Bennett resigned from the church on May 17, 1842.
||
*{{HistoricalError}}: In fact, Bennett was forced to resign by Joseph, who wrote to the Church recorder: "be so good as to permit Bennett to withdraw his name from the Church record, if he desires to do so, and this with the best of feelings towards…General Bennett."{{ref|bennett1}}
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
|| 
* Andrew Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 86–89. (Note that The author does not properly represent the source's contents.)
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====72====
||
*It is claimed that Bennett was excommunicated from the Church in "retaliation."
||
*This was not in retaliation, since Joseph had pushed for Bennett's resignation.
*A high council trial of Chauncey Higbee concluded on May 24, at which it became clear that Higbee had been seducing women under Bennett's direction.
*Bennett was told that his withdrawal from the Church would be made public.  Bennett once more begged for mercy, claiming that public exposure would distress his mother.{{ref|HC1}}   Joseph again deferred a public announcement, and Bennett would soon also make confession to the Nauvoo Masonic Lodge.  Weeping, Bennett pleaded for leniency, with Joseph as his advocate.{{ref|HC2}}   Even Joseph's patience had an end, however.  It soon became clear that still other members had used Bennett's arguments to seduce women—his excommunication was made public on 15 June.  The Masonic Lodge published Bennett's crimes the next day.{{ref|bushman1}}   His Nauvoo reputation in tatters, Bennett left and began plotting his revenge. 
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*{{HistoricalError}}
*Andrew Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 86–89.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====72====
||
*John C. Bennett claimed that his excommunication was postdated to May 11 to appear that it had occurred before his resignation.
||
*{{GDS-See also|2a|119}}
:''(The author later acts as if this claim of Bennett's is established fact.)''
*The author mischaracterizes his source, and does not tell us that Bennett's claim was false.  Bennett's biographer wrote:

:"On May 11 Smith and several others signed a statement to disfellowship Bennett….

:"According to Bennett, three of the signatories were not in Nauvoo on that date….

:"[However] William Law, one of the signatories…testified that he signed it on the evening of May 11.  Some four or five days later Law had a conversation with Bennett 'and intimated to him that such a thing was concluded upon.'…The best explanation for this matter is that Joseph Smith had the disfellowship document drawn up on May 11  Those who were in Nauvoo were asked to sign it….As others returned to the city, they added their names."  (Andrew Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 86, 100).
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||	
*Andrew Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 86–89.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====73====
||
*The author claims that up until early 1842, Joseph Smith and John C. Bennett "seemed to be on good terms."
||
*Joseph was aware of Bennett's problems by 1841 at least.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|

====73====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"It is entirely plausible that Bennett was then privy to Smith's domestic matters."}}
||
*The author wants to rehabilitate Bennett as a source, while glossing over the problems.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] 
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}
|-
|
====73====
||
*The author notes that "[i]n the spring of 1842, the two men quarreled and Smith had Bennett excommunicated…."
||
*Joseph and Bennett did not "quarrel"—evidence of further seduction and infidelity by Bennett came to light.
*Bennett was given the chance to resign, and did so.
*Further disclosure to the high council led to Bennett's exposure and excommunication.
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]]
||
* No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}}	
|-
|
====75====
||
*Zina and Henry Jacobs "were apparently willing to let the prophet insinuate himself into their marriage."
||
*{{InternalContradiction|compare p. 81}}
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====75====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"In the context of having just married a pregnant wife, [Joseph's] words acquire added meaning: 'If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you….'"}}
||
*The author implies that sexuality was involved in this polyandrous marriage.
*He tries to prejudice the reader by pointing out that Zina was pregnant when she and Henry approved her sealing to Joseph.
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}	
||
*''History of the Church'' 4:445.
|-
|
====75====
||
*It is noted that Joseph's diary and the ''History of the Church'' do not "give any hint of conjugal contacts Smith might have had with this wife."
||
*There is no evidence ''anywhere'' for any conjungal contact.  The author has repeatedly mentioned that a given event is not recorded in the ''History of the Church'', and so can here imply that there ''might be'' evidence of "conjugal contacts," but the Smith diary and ''History'' are hiding it.  There is no evidence, period.
*[[Censorship_and_revision_of_LDS_history]]
*[[../../Censorship]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}}

|-
|

====75====
||
*The author claims that when Henry Jacobs returned from his mission in June 1844 that "he found Zina accompanying Joseph to private meetings involving Masonic-like handshakes, oaths, and special clothing."
||
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language|Prejudicial language]], in which the author tries to make the endowment seem foreign, strange and alienating.
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*MORE….	Zina D.H. Young, Journal, "June 5, 6, 7, 8, 9," 1844, Zina Card Brown Collection; see Bradley and Woodward, Four Zinas, 124.
*CHECK THIS SOURCE!!
|-
|

====77====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Even though Zina was pregnant with Henry's child when she married Joseph, the theology of 'sealing' meant that in the next life she and her children would be Joseph's 'eternal possessions,' unconnected to Henry.}}	
||
*The author gives no evidence for this.  It may be that some early sealings (especially polyandrous ones) were intended to bind families to each and Joseph in salvation in the next world.
*The image which this gives of Joseph "taking away" Henry's children is inflammatory and probably misleading.
*[[The_Law_of_Adoption]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:Taking away families}}
|-
|

====77====
||
*The author claims that "[s]ome sources say [Brigham] Young advised [Henry Jacobs] to find a wife who could be his eternal partner."
||
*This from a single source (not "sources") and comes from a virulently anti-Mormon work, William Hall, ''Abominations of Mormonism Exposed'' (Cincinnati: I. Hart & Co., 1852), 43–44.
*Besides being hostile, this source has numerous problems which make it implausible.
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====77====
||
*Henry's subsequent life is not discussed by the author, perhaps because it would provide insight into why Zina chose to remain with Brigham.
||
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|
====78====
||
*Brigham Young said that "if a woman can find a man holding the keys of the priesthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her, he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is.  In either of these ways of sep[a]ration, you can discover, there is no need for a bill of divorcement."
||
*The author omits key parts of Brigham's recorded discourse: "…if a man magnifies his priesthood, observing faithfully his covenants to the end of his life, all the wives and children sealed to him, all the blessings and honors promised to him in his ordinations and sealing blessings are immutably and eternally fixed; no power can wrench them from his possession. You may inquire, in case a wife becomes disaffected with her husband, her affections lost, she becomes alienated from him and wishes to be the wife of another, can she not leave him? I know of no law in heaven or on earth by which she can be made free while her husband remains faithful and magnifies his priesthood before God and he is not disposed to put her away, she having done nothing worthy of being put away."
*[[Primary sources/Brigham Young 8 October 1861 discourse on plural marriage|Brigham Young 8 October 1861 discourse on plural marriage]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*Brigham Young, "A few words of Doctrine," Oct 8, 1861, LDS Archives.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:October 8 1861}}
|-
|

====79====
||
*Presendia Buell is claimed to have "displayed an affinity for mystical religious experiences as one of the women who began speaking and singing in tongues…."
|| 
*Speaking in tongues is not a form of "mysticism."
*This characterization is inaccurate, alienating, and prejudicial.
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}}
|-
|

====79====
||
*It is claimed that Presendia Buell "did not take the prophet's advice [to leave for Illinois while he was in Liberty Jail] prior to his escape from jail on April 16.  Nine months later, on January 31, 1841, she gave birth to a son Oliver.  Later that year [she went to Illinois]….."
||
*The main text clearly implies that Joseph was the father of Prescendia's son Norman.  Else, why mention that "nine months later" she had a child, with no further comment?
*Smith disguises the fact that DNA evidence has proved that Oliver was not Joseph's son. 
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}}
|-
|
====80 n. 63====
||
*Fawn Brodie pointed out that Oliver was born at least a year after Presendia's husband left the church and that Oliver had the angular features and high forehead of the Smith line (''No Man Knows'', 2989ff, 301, 460).[Note continues below]
||
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages]]
*[[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Presendia Buell|Children by Presendia Buell?]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
* See left column
|-
|
====80 n. 63====
||
*[Continued from above] Compton considered it improbable that Joseph and Presendia would have found time together during the brief window opportunity after his release from prison in Missouri (Sacred Loneliness, 670, 673)."[Note continues below]
||
* The problems are [[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Presendia Buell|far greater]] than "finding time together."
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
* See left column
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}}
|-
|

====80 n. 63====
||
*[Note continued from above]"….There is no DNA connection (Carrie A. Moore, “DNA tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants,” ''Deseret Morning News'', 10 November 2007). Compton finds it "unlikely, though not impossible, that Joseph Smith was the actual father" of John Hiram, born November 1843; Presendia's last child during her marriage to Norman Buell. (Sacred Loneliness, 124, 670–71)."
||
*The author makes no mention in the main text that Oliver’s paternity has been definitively ruled out by DNA testing.  What is the point of the long discussion about the possibility of Oliver being Joseph's son, when we know that he ''can't'' be?
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages]]
*[[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Presendia Buell|Children by Presendia Buell?]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
* See left column
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}}
|-
|

====81====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Occasionally, as King David did with Uriah the Hittite, Smith sent the husband [of potential polyandrous marriage partners] away on a mission which provided the privacy needed for a plural relationship to flower."}}
||
*Unmentioned—but perhaps not unimplied—is the fact that David had already committed adultery with Bathsheba, and sought to have her husband killed so he could marry her (see 2 Samuel 11). This metaphor imputes motives to Joseph where no textual evidence exists.
*[[../../Mind reading]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====81====
||
*"This [see above] applied to Zina…."
||
*Henry Jacobs was present at the sealing to Zina.  Henry knew of Joseph's plural proposal to Joseph before their marriage.
*{{InternalContradiction|compare p. 75}}
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Zina and Henry Jacobs|Zina and Henry Jacobs]]
*{{Wyatt-Zina}}
||
*No source provided.
|-
|

====82====
||
*The author notes that the History of the Church "makes no mention of the second Huntington nuptial…."
||
*[[Censorship_and_revision_of_LDS_history]]
*[[../../Censorship]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}}
|-
|
====82====
||
*The author notes a Buell child being sealed to a proxy for Joseph with “wording [that] hints that it might have been Smith’s child….It is not clear…which of her children it might have been."
||
*There is no good evidence that this child was Joseph's.	
*[[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Presendia Buell|Children by Presendia Buell?]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*Oliver Huntington Journal, Nov 14, 1884, USHS; see Compton, ''In Sacred Loneliness'', 140, 673.
|-
|

====84====
||
*The author notes: "From the inception of plural marriage, Smith demanded confidentiality from those whom he taught the principle."
||
*[[Lying_for_the_Lord%3F]]
*[[Joseph Smith and polygamy#Hiding the Truth?|Joseph Smith and polygamy&mdash;Hiding the truth?]]
||
*''History of the Church'' 4:479; Woodruff Journals 2:143.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Lying}}
|-
|

====85====
||
*The author assumes that Joseph "evidently adapted and redefined [elements] from the Masonic rituals and incorporated [them] as part of the unfolding Mormon temple ceremonies."
||
*[[Temple endowment and Freemasonry]]
||
*No source given.
|-
|
====85====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"The [temple] vows of secrecy and threats of blood penalties intensified the mysterious rites of celestial marriage…."}}
||
*There are no "blood penalties" associated with plural marriage.
*Note the prejudicial language, in which the author tries to make the endowment seem foreign, strange and alienating.

*[[Penalties_in_the_endowment]]
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
||
*Author's opinion.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:Temple}}
|-
|

====88====
||
*The author notes that there is no mention of Joseph's sealing to Agnes Smith in the History of the Church.
||

*[[Censorship_and_revision_of_LDS_history]]
*[[../../Censorship]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}}
|-
|
====92====
||
*Sarah Pratt is claimed to have reported in 1886 that Lucinda had told her nearly forty-five years earlier in 1842: "Why[,] I am his [Smith's] mistress since four years."
|| 
*Compton notes that this statement is "antagonistic, third-hand, and late" (''In Sacred Loneliness'', 650).  It seems implausible that Harris would admit to being a "mistress."
*Newel and Avery, ''Mormon Enigma'', 346 have likewise seen the "mistress" label as "an embellishment by either Sarah Pratt or W. Wyl."
*The author provides none of this perspective.
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]]
||
*Wyl, ''Mormon Portraits'', 60.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Lucinda Harris}}	
|-
|

====99====
||
*The author notes that "[a]s usual, the History of the Church made no mention of Sylvia [Sessions Lyon] on February 8, 1842…."
||

*[[Censorship_and_revision_of_LDS_history]]
*[[../../Censorship]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}}
|-
|
====100====
||
*The author claims that "[d]uring these years as Windsor's wife, Sylvia reportedly bore Smith a child in 1844…."
||
*The author ignores Brian C. Hales, “The Joseph Smith–Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?” ''Mormon Historical Studies'' 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57, which argues that Sylvia considered herself divorced prior to marrying Joseph polygamously, contrary to evidence misread by Compton.
*[[Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages]]
||
*{{CriticalWork:Compton:Sacred Loneliness|pages=180–81}}
|-
|

====103====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Typically, [Joseph] never mentioned his marriage to Patty [Sessions] on paper…."}}
||
*[[Censorship_and_revision_of_LDS_history]]
*[[../../Censorship]]
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}}
||
*No source provided.
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}}
|-
|
====105====
||
*It is claimed that Sarah Cleveland's husband "was a Swedenborgian, embracing a world view compatible with that of Mormons."
||
*These needs more argument than the author gives it.  It is not clear how being a Swedenborgian would predispose Cleveland to accept a modern prophet, new scripture, and restored priesthood authority (for example).
*Surely any world-view was somewhat compatible with the Mormons', but what about Cleveland's views were more compatible than, say, other Christians?
*[[Swedenborg_and_three_degrees_of_glory]]
||
*Biography of Sarah Maryetta Kingsley, LDS Archives.
|-
|

====106====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"John Cleveland's Swedenborgian faith might have helped prepare Sarah for some of Joseph's teachings.  Like Smith, followers of Emanuel Swedenborg conceived of a pre-existent life, 'eternal marriage' for couples who had a true 'affinity' for each other, and a three-tiered heaven that required marriage for admission to the highest level."}}
||
*Three degrees in heaven is a Biblical notion, it did not originate with Swedenborg or Joseph Smith.
*It is not clear what Swedenborg's "affinity" between spouses has to do with LDS plural marriage.
*[[Swedenborg_and_three_degrees_of_glory]]
||
*Author's speculation.
*Emanuel Swedenborg, ''Heaven and Hell'', trans. George F. Dole (West Chester, Pa.: Swedenborg Foundation, 2002), 18–32.
*CHECK THIS SOURCE!{{nw}}
|-
|

====106====
||
*The author notes that John Cleveland's continued willingness to host LDS events "indicated a likely compatibility of beliefs."
||
*There are other options:
**Perhaps Cleveland was simply a tolerant man?
**Perhaps he respected the Mormons for what he had seen of them personally?
**Perhaps he respected his wife's desire to practice her own faith, despite not sharing it.
||
* No source provided.	
|-
|

====106====
||
*{{AuthorQuote|"Like some of the other husbands of women who agreed to marry the prophet, John Cleveland nevertheless became 'more and more bitter towards the Mormons.'"}}
||
 
*The author does not tell the reader that this difficulty did not occur until after Joseph's death, and the Saints had gone west.  He neglects to point out that Compton noted that even six months before Joseph's death, Sarah's husband was "very friendly and frequently visited the Prophet." (Compton, ''In Sacred Loneliness'', 281).  
*Thus, the implication that Joseph's plural marriage caused problems for Cleveland is not sustained by the evidence.
*The author also does not tell us that one version of Sarah's decision to remain behind instead of going to Utah reads:
:"Brigham Young and council…counciled her to stay with her Husband as he was a good man, having shown himself kind ever helping those in need, although for some reason his mind was darkened as to the Gospel. She obey[ed] the council and stayed with her Husband, and was faithfull and true to her religion and died a faithfull member of the Church…." (Compton, ''In Sacred Loneliness'', 283).
*[[Joseph_Smith_and_polyandry/Book_chapter#Sarah_Kingsley_Howe_Cleveland|Sarah Cleveland]]
||	
*Sarah Cleveland to August Lyman, 1847, John Lyman Smith Collection, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, cited by Compton, ''In Sacred Loneliness'', 284.
|-
|

====106====
||
*Besides Cleveland (see above) other polyandrous husbands are claimed to have become more bitter against the Church.
||
*As shown above, Cleveland was not bitter about the Church or Joseph during Joseph's lifetime.
*No other examples are given.  It is not clear to whom the author is referring.
*[[Joseph_Smith_and_polyandry/Book_chapter]]
||
* No source provided.
|-
|
{{EndClaimsTable}}

==Endnotes==
#{{note|stenhouse1}} T. B. H. Stenhouse, ''The Rocky Mountain Saints : A Full and Complete History of the Mormons....'' (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1878 [1873]), 184 note.
#{{note|ehat1}}  Andrew F. Ehat, "Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question," (Master's Thesis, Brigham Young University, 1981), 40.
#{{note|pratt1}} George L. Mitton and Rhett S. James, "A Response to D. Michael Quinn's Homosexual Distortion of Latter-Day Saint History," ''FARMS Review of Books'' 10/1 (1998): footnote 70, citing T. Edgar Lyon, "Orson Pratt—Early Mormon Leader," (M.A. diss., University of Chicago, 1932), 31.  See also ''Millennial Star'' 40 (16 December 1878): 788.
#{{note|bushman2}}{{RSR1|start=411}}
#{{note|bennett1}} Bennett, ''History of the Saints'', 40–41.
#{{note|HC1}} {{HoC1|vol=5|num=18}}
#{{note|HC2}} Smith, ''History of the Church'', 5:18 (26 May 1842).
#{{note|bushman1}} {{RSR1|start=461}}; see ''Times and Seasons'' 3/15 (15 June 1842): 830;  Smith, ''History of the Church'', 5:32.

=Further reading=
{{FAIRAnalysisWiki}}