FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Nauvoo Polygamy/Chapter 2"
m (→84) |
m (→top: Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}) |
||
(182 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | {{ | + | {{Main Page}} |
− | | | + | {{H1 |
− | | | + | |L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Nauvoo Polygamy/Chapter 2 |
− | | | + | |H=Response to claims made in "Chapter 2" (pp. 52-80) |
− | | | + | |S= |
− | | | + | |L1= |
− | | | + | |T=[[../../|Nauvoo Polygamy: "... but we called it celestial marriage"]] |
− | + | |A=George D. Smith | |
+ | |<=[[../Chapter 1a|Chapter 1 (pp. 26-51)]] | ||
+ | |>=[[../Chapter 2a|Chapter 2 (pp. 81-155)]] | ||
}} | }} | ||
− | + | <!-- INSERT CHART HERE --> | |
− | == | + | <onlyinclude> |
− | + | {{H2 | |
− | | | + | |L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Nauvoo Polygamy/Chapter 2 |
− | ==== | + | |H=Response to claims made in Nauvoo Polygamy, "Chapter 2" (pp. 52-158) |
− | || | + | |S= |
− | | | + | |L1=Response to claim: 53 - 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'" |
− | *{{ | + | |L2=Response to claim: 53 - "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'" |
− | + | |L3=Response to claim: 53 - "Emma Hale, Joseph's wife of fifteen years, had left his side just twenty-four hours earlier. Now Joseph declared that he was "lonesome" | |
− | *[[../../ | + | |L4=Response to claim: 54 - “Did Sarah Ann keep this rendezvous on that humid summer night? Unfortunately, the documentary record is silent" |
+ | |L5=Response to claim: 54 - The author states that what interested him the most was how Joseph "went about courting…these women" | ||
+ | |L6=Response to claim: 55 - When polygamy was officially abandoned in 1890, that "what previously had been called 'celestial marriage' was subtly redefined to specify something new | ||
+ | |L7=Response to claim: 55 - "Despite his crowded daily schedule, the prophet interrupted other activities for secret liaisons with women and girls" | ||
+ | |L8=Response to claim: 55 - "Joseph "assured the women and their families that such unions were not only sanctioned but were demanded by heaven" | ||
+ | |L9=Response to claim: 56 - "There may have been even more wives and plural children" | ||
+ | |L10=Response to claim: 63 - "conjugal visits appear furtive and constantly shadowed by the threat of disclosure" | ||
+ | |L11=Response to claim: 65 - "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" | ||
+ | |L12=Response to claim: 65 - "One of the instrumental people in the inauguration of plural marriage was John Bennett" | ||
+ | |L13=Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett was Joseph Smith's "closest confident" | ||
+ | |L14-Response to claim: 65 - Joseph was "sharing power" with John C. Bennett | ||
+ | |L15=Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett spoke out against Joseph "and was soon stripped of his offices and titles" | ||
+ | |L16=Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett and Joseph each "accused the other of immoral behavior" | ||
+ | |L17=Response to claim: 65 - While some of John C. Bennett's claims "may have been exaggerations, much of what he reported can be confirmed by other eyewitness accounts" | ||
+ | |L18=Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett "cannot be merely dismissed as an unfriendly source who fabricated scandal" | ||
+ | |L19=Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett "had an ambitious but colorful background" | ||
+ | |L20=Response to claim: 66-67 - John C. Bennett "was well positioned to know all about any behind-the-scenes transactions" | ||
+ | |L21=Response to claim: 68 - Joseph is merely “feigning impartiality” before going on to practice “undemocratic block voting" | ||
+ | |L22=Response to claim: 69 - Joseph was apparently "undeterred" by reports of a negative assessment of Bennett | ||
+ | |L23=Response to claim: 69 - John C. Bennett was Assistant President of the Church | ||
+ | |L24=Response to claim: 69 - John C. Bennett had religious influence by being Assistant President of the Church | ||
+ | |L25=Response to claim: 70 - Joseph Smith and John C. Bennett remained confidants until about March the next year (1842) | ||
+ | |L26=Response to claim: 70 - There seemed to be "no office or honor within reach" that Joseph Smith "did not hasten to grant to" John C. Bennett | ||
+ | |L27=Response to claim: 70 - "Zina Huntington, who married Henry Jacobs instead but then reconsidered seven months later in response to Joseph's restated interest" | ||
+ | |L28=Response to claim: 70-71 - "Joseph soon after married Zina's sister, Presendia, who was also already married" | ||
+ | |L29=Response to claim: 71 - "Bennett alleged that during the summer and fall of 1841, Smith made unsuccessful advances toward Apostle Orson Pratt's wife, Sarah" | ||
+ | |L30=Response to claim: 72 - Orson Pratt eventually accepted Joseph's explanation "that he merely wanted to test Sarah's obedience, and was not seriously courting this married woman" | ||
+ | |L31=Response to claim: 72 - "Meanwhile, Bennett seems to have followed his leader in courting several women himself" | ||
+ | |L32=Response to claim: 72 - John C. Bennett resigned from the church on May 17, 1842 | ||
+ | |L33=Response to claim: 72 - John C. Bennett was excommunicated from the Church in "retaliation" | ||
+ | |L34=Response to claim: 72 - John C. Bennett claimed that his excommunication was postdated to May 11 to appear that it had occurred before his resignation | ||
+ | |L35=Response to claim: 73 - "It is entirely plausible that Bennett was then privy to Smith's domestic matters" | ||
+ | |L36=Response to claim: 73 - "In the spring of 1842, the two men quarreled and Smith had Bennett excommunicated" | ||
+ | |L37=Response to claim: 75 - Zina and Henry Jacobs "were apparently willing to let the prophet insinuate himself into their marriage" | ||
+ | |L38=Response to claim: 75 - "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….'" | ||
+ | |L39=Response to claim: 75 - Joseph's diary and the ''History of the Church'' do not "give any hint of conjugal contacts Smith might have had with this wife" | ||
+ | |L40=Response to claim: 77 - "Even though Zina was pregnant with Henry's child when she married Joseph...she and her children would be Joseph's 'eternal possessions,' unconnected to Henry" | ||
+ | |L41=Response to claim: 77 - Brigham Young advised Henry Jacobs "to find a wife who could be his eternal partner" | ||
+ | |L42=Response to claim: 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" | ||
+ | |L43=Response to claim: 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" | ||
+ | |L44=Response to claim: 79 - 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" | ||
+ | |L45=Response to claim: 80 n. 63 - "There is no DNA connection" between Joseph Smith and Oliver Buell | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | </onlyinclude> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Response to claim: 53 - 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'"== | ||
+ | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
+ | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
+ | |claim= | ||
+ | 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.'" | ||
+ | |authorsources=<br> | ||
+ | *Smith, Letter to "Brother and Sister [Newel K.] Whitney, and &c.," Nauvoo, Illinois, Aug. 18, 1842, Church Archives, Salt Lake City. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation| | ||
+ | |mistake=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. The author also contradicts himself on p. 65: "Joseph requested that Sarah Ann Whitney visit him and ‘nock at the window...." | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
+ | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | ||
+ | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Age_wives}} | ||
+ | *[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]] | ||
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | ||
− | |||
*[[../../Romance]] | *[[../../Romance]] | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
*[[../../Presentism]] | *[[../../Presentism]] | ||
− | + | {{:Question: Did Joseph Smith write a "love letter" to his plural wife Sarah Ann Whitney to request a secret rendezvous?}} | |
− | + | {{:Question: How do critics of the Church portray Joseph Smith's letter to the Whitney family as a "love letter"?}} | |
+ | {{:Question: What was the real purpose of the letter written by Joseph Smith to the parents of Sarah Ann Whitney?}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Response to claim: 53 - "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'"== | ||
+ | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
+ | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
+ | |claim= | ||
+ | {{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."}} | ||
+ | |authorsources= | ||
+ | *Whitney letter, Aug. 18, 1842. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation| | ||
+ | |mistake=Joseph is speaking '''to all three Whitneys''', and the author again distorts the letter as at the beginning of the book. | ||
+ | }} | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | ||
− | + | *[[Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Whitney letter]] | |
− | + | *[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]] | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | *[[Joseph Smith | ||
− | *[[../../ | ||
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | ||
− | |||
*[[../../Romance]] | *[[../../Romance]] | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
− | || | + | |
− | + | ==Response to claim: 53 - "Emma Hale, Joseph's wife of fifteen years, had left his side just twenty-four hours earlier. Now Joseph declared that he was "lonesome"== | |
+ | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
+ | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
+ | |claim={{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.}} | ||
+ | |authorsources=<br> | ||
+ | #Whitney letter, Aug. 18, 1842. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{propaganda|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. | ||
+ | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | ||
− | + | }} | |
− | + | *[[Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Whitney letter]] | |
− | + | *[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]] | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | *[[ | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | *[[../../ | ||
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | ||
− | |||
*[[../../Romance]] | *[[../../Romance]] | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Response to claim: 54 - “Did Sarah Ann keep this rendezvous on that humid summer night? Unfortunately, the documentary record is silent"== | ||
+ | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
+ | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
+ | |claim={{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."}} | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{propaganda|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. | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | ||
− | + | }} | |
− | + | *[[Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Whitney letter]] | |
− | + | *[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]] | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | *[[Joseph Smith | ||
− | *[[../../ | ||
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | ||
− | |||
*[[../../Romance]] | *[[../../Romance]] | ||
− | + | ||
− | || | + | ==Response to claim: 54 - The author states that what interested him the most was how Joseph "went about courting…these women"== |
+ | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
+ | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
+ | |claim=The author states that what interested him the most was how Joseph "went about courting…these women." | ||
+ | |authorsources= | ||
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
− | + | }} | |
− | | | + | {{misinformation|There is no evidence that Joseph did any courting. He often used intermediaries. |
− | + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Womanizing and romance}} | |
− | + | }} | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | ||
*[[../../Mind reading]] | *[[../../Mind reading]] | ||
*[[../../Romance]] | *[[../../Romance]] | ||
*[[../../Assumptions and presumptions]] | *[[../../Assumptions and presumptions]] | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ==Response to claim: 55 - When polygamy was officially abandoned in 1890, that "what previously had been called 'celestial marriage' was subtly redefined to specify something new== | |
− | {{ | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | | | + | |claim=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." |
− | = | + | |authorsources= |
− | |||
− | | | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|The claimed "redefinition" was present from the very beginning of plural marriage. The emphasis changed: | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Necessary_for_salvation}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Necessary_for_salvation}} | ||
− | | | + | }} |
− | + | *[[Polygamy_book/Introduction_of_the_eternal_marriage|Plural marriage vs. celestial marriage in the beginning]] | |
− | ====55==== | + | *[[Polygamy/Requirement for exaltation]] |
− | ||Plural marriage | + | |
− | + | <!-- ====55==== | |
− | *[[Polygamy | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
+ | |claim=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/Requirement for exaltation]] | ||
+ | |authorsources= | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Necessary_for_salvation}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Necessary_for_salvation}} | ||
− | + | }} --> | |
− | + | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 55 - "Despite his crowded daily schedule, the prophet interrupted other activities for secret liaisons with women and girls"== |
− | ||"Despite his crowded daily schedule, the prophet interrupted other activities for secret liaisons with women and girls…." | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | + | |claim={{AuthorQuote|"Despite his crowded daily schedule, the prophet interrupted other activities for secret liaisons with women and girls…."}} | |
− | + | |authorsources= | |
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{propaganda|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." | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Womanizing and romance}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Womanizing and romance}} | ||
− | + | }} | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | ||
− | || | + | |
+ | ==Response to claim: 55 - "Joseph "assured the women and their families that such unions were not only sanctioned but were demanded by heaven"== | ||
+ | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
+ | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
+ | |claim=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.'" | ||
+ | |authorsources= | ||
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
− | | | + | }} |
− | + | {{misinformation|The author does not tell us that Joseph had the women get their OWN witness. Women could and did turn Joseph down with no consequences. | |
− | == | + | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] |
− | + | }} | |
− | || | + | *[[Polygamy/Divine manifestations to plural wives and families]] |
− | + | *[[Joseph Smith and polygamy/Did women turn Joseph down]] | |
− | + | ||
− | | | + | ==Response to claim: 56 - "There may have been even more wives and plural children"== |
+ | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
+ | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
+ | |claim=The author assumes that "[t]here may have been even more wives and plural children." | ||
+ | |authorsources= | ||
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
− | | | + | }} |
− | + | {{propaganda|Anything ''might'' have happened. The author provides no evidence. This is the [[Logical_fallacies#Appeal_to_probability|fallacy of probability]]. | |
− | ====57==== | + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Fallacy of probability}} |
− | ||''History of the Church'' says nothing about Nauvoo on the day of Louisa Beaman's marriage to Joseph. | + | }} |
− | + | ||
− | *[[ | + | <!-- ====57==== |
+ | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
+ | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
+ | |claim=The author notes that ''History of the Church'' says nothing about Nauvoo on the day of Louisa Beaman's marriage to Joseph. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | *[[Church history/Censorship and revision]] | ||
*[[../../Censorship]] | *[[../../Censorship]] | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
− | | | + | |authorsources= |
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}} | ||
− | + | }} --> | |
− | + | ==Response to claim: 63 - "conjugal visits appear furtive and constantly shadowed by the threat of disclosure"== | |
− | == | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | ||"As will be seen, conjugal visits appear furtive and constantly shadowed by the threat of disclosure." | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | | | + | |claim={{AuthorQuote|"As will be seen, conjugal visits appear furtive and constantly shadowed by the threat of disclosure."}} |
− | + | |authorsources= | |
− | |||
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{propaganda|This is pure assumption on the part of the author—he provides no such evidence save his own repeated representation of the Whitney letter. | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | ||
− | + | }} | |
− | + | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 65 - "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"== |
− | ||“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 | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | || | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | *{{InternalContradiction|The invitation was to Sarah and her parents}} | + | |claim={{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.”}} |
+ | |authorsources= | ||
+ | *No citation given | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|The letter was addressed to Sarah's parents, not to Sarah. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | *{{InternalContradiction|p. 55: The invitation was to Sarah and her parents—[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]] | *[[../../Contradictions]] | ||
− | *[[Joseph Smith | + | *[[Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Whitney letter]] |
− | *[[../../ | + | *[[../../Use_of_sources#Sarah_Ann_Whitney_and_the_letter_to_the_Whitneys|Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys]] |
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | ||
*[[../../Mind reading]] | *[[../../Mind reading]] | ||
*[[../../Romance]] | *[[../../Romance]] | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Love_letters_Whitney}} | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ==Response to claim: 65 - "One of the instrumental people in the inauguration of plural marriage was John Bennett"== | |
− | == | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | || | + | |claim=The author claims that "[o]ne of the instrumental people in the inauguration of plural marriage was John [C.] Bennett…." |
− | + | |authorsources= | |
+ | No sources provided | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{propaganda|The is a huge assumption on the part of the author, 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]] | *[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | ||
− | |||
− | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
+ | ==Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett was Joseph Smith's "closest confident"== | ||
+ | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
+ | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
+ | |claim=The author notes that in 1841, John C. Bennett was Joseph Smith's "closest confident." {{attn}} | ||
+ | |authorsources= | ||
* No source provided. | * No source provided. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|The author ignores the fact that Joseph began to distrust Bennett for cause long before their public rupture. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | *[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 65 - Joseph was "sharing power" with John C. Bennett== |
− | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | *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. | + | |claim=It is claimed that Joseph was "sharing power" with Bennett. |
+ | |authorsources= | ||
+ | *No source provided. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|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]] | *[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | ||
− | || | + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} |
+ | |||
+ | ==Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett spoke out against Joseph "and was soon stripped of his offices and titles"== | ||
+ | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
+ | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
+ | |claim=It is claimed that in 1842, John C. Bennett spoke out against Joseph "and was soon stripped of his offices and titles." | ||
+ | |authorsources= | ||
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
− | + | }} | |
− | | | + | {{misinformation|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]] | *[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | ||
− | |||
− | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ==Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett and Joseph each "accused the other of immoral behavior"== | |
− | == | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
− | || | + | |claim=It is claimed that John C. Bennett and Joseph each "accused the other of immoral behavior." |
− | + | |authorsources= | |
− | |||
− | | | ||
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|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]] | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ==Response to claim: 65 - While some of John C. Bennett's claims "may have been exaggerations, much of what he reported can be confirmed by other eyewitness accounts"== | |
− | == | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
− | || | + | |claim=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." |
− | + | |authorsources= | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | | | ||
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{propaganda|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]] | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ==Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett "cannot be merely dismissed as an unfriendly source who fabricated scandal"== | |
− | == | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | | | + | |claim=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." |
− | + | |authorsources= | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
*Author's opinion. | *Author's opinion. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{propaganda|The author never does this weighing for us. Much of what Bennett writes, after analysis, must be dismissed as fabrication or exaggeration, however. Even anti-Mormon authors warned of Bennett's problems: | ||
+ | <blockquote> | ||
+ | "There is, no doubt, much truth in Bennett's book…but no statement that he makes can be received with confidence." <ref>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.</ref> | ||
+ | </blockquote> | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | *[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ==Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett "had an ambitious but colorful background"== | |
− | == | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | | | + | |claim=The author claims that "Bennett had an ambitious but colorful background." |
− | *This hides a mountain of evidence about Bennett's pre-LDS behavior, including: | + | |authorsources= |
− | + | *No source provided | |
− | + | }} | |
− | + | {{propaganda|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]] | *[[John C. Bennett]] | ||
− | |||
− | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ==Response to claim: 66-67 - John C. Bennett "was well positioned to know all about any behind-the-scenes transactions"== | |
− | == | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | ||"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. | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | | | + | |claim={{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.}} |
− | + | |authorsources= | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
*Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 56. | *Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 56. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{propaganda|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: | ||
+ | <blockquote> | ||
+ | "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>Andrew F. Ehat, "Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question," (Master's Thesis, Brigham Young University, 1981), 40.</ref> | ||
+ | </blockquote> | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | *[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 68 - Joseph is merely “feigning impartiality” before going on to practice “undemocratic block voting"== |
− | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | *Block voting is not undemocratic—many interest groups vote en masse for candidates which will meet their needs. | + | |claim=The author claims that Joseph is merely “feigning impartiality” before going on to practice “undemocratic block voting.” |
− | + | |authorsources= | |
+ | *No source provided. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|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]] | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | ||
− | |||
− | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Bloc voting}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Bloc voting}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 69 - Joseph was apparently "undeterred" by reports of a negative assessment of Bennett== |
− | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | |
− | || | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | + | |claim=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. | |
− | + | |authorsources= | |
− | | | ||
* No source provided. | * No source provided. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{information|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." | ||
+ | </blockquote> | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | *[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 69 - John C. Bennett was Assistant President of the Church== |
− | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | |
− | || | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | + | |claim=It is noted that John C. Bennett was Assistant President of the Church. | |
− | + | |authorsources= | |
− | | | ||
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{information|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]] | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 69 - John C. Bennett had religious influence by being Assistant President of the Church== |
− | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | |
− | || | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | + | |claim=It is claimed that John C. Bennett had religious influence by being Assistant President of the Church. | |
− | + | |authorsources= | |
− | | | ||
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|[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]] | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 70 - Joseph Smith and John C. Bennett remained confidants until about March the next year (1842)== |
− | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | |
− | || | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | + | |claim=The author claims that Joseph Smith and John C. Bennett remained confidants until about March the next year (1842). | |
− | + | |authorsources= | |
− | |||
− | | | ||
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
− | + | }} | |
+ | {{misinformation|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]] | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 70 - There seemed to be "no office or honor within reach" that Joseph Smith "did not hasten to grant to" John C. Bennett== |
− | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
− | + | |claim=It is claimed that there seemed to be "no office or honor within reach that Smith did not hasten to grant to Bennett." | |
− | + | |authorsources= | |
− | | | ||
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{disinformation|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]] | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 70 - "Zina Huntington, who married Henry Jacobs instead but then reconsidered seven months later in response to Joseph's restated interest"== |
− | ||"Zina Huntington, who married Henry Jacobs instead but then reconsidered seven months later in response to Joseph's restated interest." | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | *Zina said the Lord [[Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations#Zina_Huntington|told her what to do]]. | + | |claim={{AuthorQuote|"Zina Huntington, who married Henry Jacobs instead but then reconsidered seven months later in response to Joseph's restated interest."}} |
− | *[[Joseph Smith and | + | |authorsources= |
− | *{{Wyatt-Zina}} | + | *No source provide |
− | + | }} | |
− | + | {{information|Zina said the Lord [[Plural_marriage_spiritual_manifestations#Zina_Huntington|told her what to do]]. | |
− | + | }} | |
− | + | *[[Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Zina and Henry Jacobs|Zina and Henry Jacobs]] | |
+ | *[[Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry]] | ||
+ | *{{Wyatt-Zina}}. | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 70-71 - "Joseph soon after married Zina's sister, Presendia, who was also already married"==== |
− | ||"Seemingly impatient, Joseph soon after married Zina's sister, Presendia, who was also already married." | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
+ | |claim= | ||
+ | {{AuthorQuote|"Seemingly impatient, Joseph soon after married Zina's sister, Presendia, who was also already married."}} | ||
+ | |authorsources= | ||
+ | No source provided. | ||
+ | }} | ||
*[[../../Mind reading]] | *[[../../Mind reading]] | ||
− | |||
*{{Wyatt-Zina}} | *{{Wyatt-Zina}} | ||
− | || | + | {{:Question: What did the husband of Presendia L. Huntington know about her sealing to Joseph Smith for eternity?}} |
+ | |||
+ | ==Response to claim: 71 - "Bennett alleged that during the summer and fall of 1841, Smith made unsuccessful advances toward Apostle Orson Pratt's wife, Sarah"== | ||
+ | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
+ | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
+ | |claim=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." | ||
+ | |authorsources= | ||
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
− | + | }} | |
− | + | {{misinformation|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]] | *[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | ||
− | |||
− | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | + | <!-- ====71==== | |
− | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | |
− | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
− | ====71==== | + | |claim=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. | *The author here avoids the necessity of dealing with the problems in Bennett's account. | ||
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | *[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | ||
− | | | + | |authorsources= |
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
− | + | }} --> | |
− | + | ||
− | ====71==== | + | <!-- ====71==== |
− | ||"…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…." | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
+ | |claim={{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. | *"Recalling" assumes that Bennett's account is truthful, and not fabricated. This has not been demonstrated. | ||
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | *[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | ||
− | | | + | |authorsources= |
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | + | }} --> | |
− | |||
− | == | + | <!-- ==Response to claim: 71 - The author concludes that Joseph believed that Sarah Pratt "had been wrong to reject him—and that she had failed the test"== |
− | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | *The author again says nothing about Sarah and Bennett's affair, which probably had something to do with her "alienation." | + | |claim=The author concludes that Joseph believed 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…." |
+ | |authorsources= | ||
+ | * No source provided. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|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]] | *[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | ||
− | |||
− | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | + | }} --> | |
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 72 - Orson Pratt eventually accepted Joseph's explanation "that he merely wanted to test Sarah's obedience, and was not seriously courting this married woman"== |
− | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | |
− | || | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | + | |claim=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." | |
− | + | |authorsources= | |
− | |||
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
− | + | }} | |
− | + | {{misinformation|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>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.</ref> He presents no evidence for what explanation Joseph gave Orson, or what Orson believed. | |
− | + | }} | |
− | |||
− | | | ||
− | |||
− | |||
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | *[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | ||
− | || | + | |
+ | ==Response to claim: 72 - "Meanwhile, Bennett seems to have followed his leader in courting several women himself"== | ||
+ | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
+ | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
+ | |claim={{AuthorQuote|"Meanwhile, Bennett seems to have followed his leader in courting several women himself."}} | ||
+ | |authorsources= | ||
* No source provided | * No source provided | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{propaganda|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>{{nc}}</ref> | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | *[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 72 - John C. Bennett resigned from the church on May 17, 1842== |
− | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | *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." | + | |claim=The author claims that John C. Bennett resigned from the church on May 17, 1842. |
+ | |authorsources= | ||
+ | * Andrew Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 86–89. (Note that The author does not properly represent the source's contents.) | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation| 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>Bennett, ''History of the Saints'', 40–41.</ref> | ||
+ | }} | ||
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | *[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | ||
− | |||
− | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 72 - John C. Bennett was excommunicated from the Church in "retaliation"== |
− | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | || | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | + | |claim=It is claimed that Bennett was excommunicated from the Church in "retaliation." | |
− | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
− | + | #Andrew Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 86–89. | |
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|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>{{HoC1|vol=5|num=18}}</ref> 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>Smith, ''History of the Church'', 5:18 (26 May 1842).</ref> 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>{{RSR1|start=461}}; see ''Times and Seasons'' 3/15 (15 June 1842): 830; Smith, ''History of the Church'', 5:32.</ref> His Nauvoo reputation in tatters, Bennett left and began plotting his revenge. | ||
+ | }} | ||
*[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | *[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 72 - John C. Bennett claimed that his excommunication was postdated to May 11 to appear that it had occurred before his resignation== |
− | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | {{GDS-See also| | + | |claim=John C. Bennett claimed that his excommunication was postdated to May 11 to appear that it had occurred before his resignation. |
− | *The author mischaracterizes his source, and does not tell us that Bennett's claim was false. | + | |authorsources= |
− | + | *Andrew Smith, ''Saintly Scoundrel'', 86–89. | |
− | + | }} | |
+ | *{{GDS-See also|2a|119}} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|''(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…. | :"On May 11 Smith and several others signed a statement to disfellowship Bennett…. | ||
Line 473: | Line 579: | ||
:"[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). | :"[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]] |
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 73 - "It is entirely plausible that Bennett was then privy to Smith's domestic matters"== |
− | ||" | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
− | + | |claim={{AuthorQuote|"It is entirely plausible that Bennett was then privy to Smith's domestic matters."}} | |
− | + | |authorsources= | |
− | |||
− | | | ||
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{propaganda|The author wants to rehabilitate Bennett as a source, while glossing over the problems. | ||
+ | }} | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ==Response to claim: 73 - "In the spring of 1842, the two men quarreled and Smith had Bennett excommunicated"== | |
− | == | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | | | + | |claim=The author notes that "[i]n the spring of 1842, the two men quarreled and Smith had Bennett excommunicated…." |
− | + | |authorsources= | |
− | |||
− | | | ||
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
− | + | }} | |
− | | | + | {{misinformation|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]] | *[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]] | ||
− | |||
− | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:John_C._Bennett}} | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ==Response to claim: 75 - Zina and Henry Jacobs "were apparently willing to let the prophet insinuate himself into their marriage"== | |
− | == | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | | | + | |claim=Zina and Henry Jacobs "were apparently willing to let the prophet insinuate himself into their marriage." |
+ | |authorsources= | ||
+ | *No source provided. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{propaganda}} | ||
*{{InternalContradiction|compare p. 81}} | *{{InternalContradiction|compare p. 81}} | ||
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | ||
*{{Wyatt-Zina}} | *{{Wyatt-Zina}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 75 - "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….'"== |
− | ||"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….'" | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | *The author implies that sexuality was involved in this polyandrous marriage. | + | |claim={{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….'"}} |
− | + | |authorsources= | |
+ | *''History of the Church'' 4:445. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{propaganda|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}} | *{{Wyatt-Zina}} | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ==Response to claim: 75 - Joseph's diary and the ''History of the Church'' do not "give any hint of conjugal contacts Smith might have had with this wife"== | |
− | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | + | |claim=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." | |
− | | | + | }} |
− | | | + | {{propaganda|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. |
− | + | }} | |
− | *[[ | + | *[[Church history/Censorship and revision]] |
*[[../../Censorship]] | *[[../../Censorship]] | ||
− | |||
− | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}} | ||
− | + | <!-- ====75==== | |
− | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | |
− | ====75==== | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | || | + | |claim=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 | + | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language|Prejudicial language]], in which the author tries to make the endowment seem foreign, strange and alienating. |
*[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | ||
*{{Wyatt-Zina}} | *{{Wyatt-Zina}} | ||
− | | | + | |authorsources= |
*MORE…. Zina D.H. Young, Journal, "June 5, 6, 7, 8, 9," 1844, Zina Card Brown Collection; see Bradley and Woodward, Four Zinas, 124. | *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!! | *CHECK THIS SOURCE!! | ||
− | + | }} --> | |
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 77 - "Even though Zina was pregnant with Henry's child when she married Joseph...she and her children would be Joseph's 'eternal possessions,' unconnected to Henry"== |
− | ||"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. | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
− | + | |claim={{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."}} | |
− | *[[ | + | |authorsources= |
+ | *No source provided. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{propaganda|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. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | *[[Polygamy/The Law of Adoption]] | ||
*{{Wyatt-Zina}} | *{{Wyatt-Zina}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:Taking away families}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:Taking away families}} | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ==Response to claim: 77 - Brigham Young advised Henry Jacobs "to find a wife who could be his eternal partner"== | |
− | == | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | | | + | |claim=The author claims that "[s]ome sources say [Brigham] Young advised [Henry Jacobs] to find a wife who could be his eternal partner." |
− | + | }} | |
− | + | {{propaganda|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}} | *{{Wyatt-Zina}} | ||
− | + | }} | |
− | + | <!-- ====77==== | |
− | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | |
− | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
− | ====77==== | + | |claim=Henry's subsequent life is not discussed by the author, perhaps because it would provide insight into why Zina chose to remain with Brigham. |
− | ||Henry's subsequent life is not discussed by | + | }} |
− | |||
*{{Wyatt-Zina}} | *{{Wyatt-Zina}} | ||
− | | | + | |authorsources= |
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
− | + | }} --> | |
− | + | ==Response to claim: 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"== | |
− | == | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | || | + | |claim=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." |
− | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
+ | #Brigham Young, "A few words of Doctrine," Oct 8, 1861, LDS Archives. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|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}} | *{{Wyatt-Zina}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:October 8 1861}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo Polygamy:See also:October 8 1861}} | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ==Response to claim: 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"== | |
− | == | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | | | + | |claim=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…." |
− | + | |authorsources= | |
− | |||
− | |||
*No source provided. | *No source provided. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|Speaking in tongues is not a form of "mysticism." This characterization is inaccurate, alienating, and prejudicial. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | *[[../../Loaded and prejudicial language]] | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}} | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ==Response to claim: 79 - 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"== | |
− | == | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | | | + | |claim=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]….." |
− | + | |authorsources= | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}} | ||
− | + | }} | |
− | + | {{propaganda|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? The author disguises the fact that DNA evidence has proved that Oliver was not Joseph's son. | |
− | + | *[[Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages]] | |
− | | | ||
− | |||
− | *[[Joseph Smith | ||
− | |||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | + | <!-- ====80 n. 63==== | |
− | *[[Joseph Smith | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | *[[ | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
+ | |claim=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/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages]] | ||
+ | *[[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Presendia Buell|Children by Presendia Buell?]] | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
− | | | + | |authorsources= |
* See left column | * See left column | ||
− | + | }} --> | |
− | + | <!-- ====80 n. 63==== | |
− | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | |
− | ====80 n. 63==== | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | || | + | |claim=[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." | |
− | The | + | *[[Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages]] |
− | *[[Joseph Smith | ||
− | |||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
− | | | + | |authorsources= |
* See left column | * See left column | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}} | ||
− | + | }} --> | |
− | |||
− | ==== | + | ==Response to claim: 80 n. 63 - "There is no DNA connection" between Joseph Smith and Oliver Buell== |
− | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | | | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy |
− | + | |claim="….There is no DNA connection (Carrie A. Moore, “DNA tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants: scientific advances prove no genetic link,” ''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)." | |
− | *[[ | + | }} |
+ | {{disinformation|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/Polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Presendia Buell|Children by Presendia Buell?]] | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
− | + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Buell}} | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also: | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | + | {{endnotes sources}} | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |
Latest revision as of 13:14, 13 April 2024
Response to claims made in "Chapter 2" (pp. 52-80)
Chapter 1 (pp. 26-51) | A FAIR Analysis of: Nauvoo Polygamy: "... but we called it celestial marriage", a work by author: George D. Smith
|
Chapter 2 (pp. 81-155) |
Response to claims made in Nauvoo Polygamy, "Chapter 2" (pp. 52-158)
Jump to details:
- Response to claim: 53 - 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'"
- Response to claim: 53 - "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'"
- Response to claim: 53 - "Emma Hale, Joseph's wife of fifteen years, had left his side just twenty-four hours earlier. Now Joseph declared that he was "lonesome"
- Response to claim: 54 - “Did Sarah Ann keep this rendezvous on that humid summer night? Unfortunately, the documentary record is silent"
- Response to claim: 54 - The author states that what interested him the most was how Joseph "went about courting…these women"
- Response to claim: 55 - When polygamy was officially abandoned in 1890, that "what previously had been called 'celestial marriage' was subtly redefined to specify something new
- Response to claim: 55 - "Despite his crowded daily schedule, the prophet interrupted other activities for secret liaisons with women and girls"
- Response to claim: 55 - "Joseph "assured the women and their families that such unions were not only sanctioned but were demanded by heaven"
- Response to claim: 56 - "There may have been even more wives and plural children"
- Response to claim: 63 - "conjugal visits appear furtive and constantly shadowed by the threat of disclosure"
- Response to claim: 65 - "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"
- Response to claim: 65 - "One of the instrumental people in the inauguration of plural marriage was John Bennett"
- Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett was Joseph Smith's "closest confident"
- Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett spoke out against Joseph "and was soon stripped of his offices and titles"
- Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett and Joseph each "accused the other of immoral behavior"
- Response to claim: 65 - While some of John C. Bennett's claims "may have been exaggerations, much of what he reported can be confirmed by other eyewitness accounts"
- Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett "cannot be merely dismissed as an unfriendly source who fabricated scandal"
- Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett "had an ambitious but colorful background"
- Response to claim: 66-67 - John C. Bennett "was well positioned to know all about any behind-the-scenes transactions"
- Response to claim: 68 - Joseph is merely “feigning impartiality” before going on to practice “undemocratic block voting"
- Response to claim: 69 - Joseph was apparently "undeterred" by reports of a negative assessment of Bennett
- Response to claim: 69 - John C. Bennett was Assistant President of the Church
- Response to claim: 69 - John C. Bennett had religious influence by being Assistant President of the Church
- Response to claim: 70 - Joseph Smith and John C. Bennett remained confidants until about March the next year (1842)
- Response to claim: 70 - There seemed to be "no office or honor within reach" that Joseph Smith "did not hasten to grant to" John C. Bennett
- Response to claim: 70 - "Zina Huntington, who married Henry Jacobs instead but then reconsidered seven months later in response to Joseph's restated interest"
- Response to claim: 70-71 - "Joseph soon after married Zina's sister, Presendia, who was also already married"
- Response to claim: 71 - "Bennett alleged that during the summer and fall of 1841, Smith made unsuccessful advances toward Apostle Orson Pratt's wife, Sarah"
- Response to claim: 72 - Orson Pratt eventually accepted Joseph's explanation "that he merely wanted to test Sarah's obedience, and was not seriously courting this married woman"
- Response to claim: 72 - "Meanwhile, Bennett seems to have followed his leader in courting several women himself"
- Response to claim: 72 - John C. Bennett resigned from the church on May 17, 1842
- Response to claim: 72 - John C. Bennett was excommunicated from the Church in "retaliation"
- Response to claim: 72 - John C. Bennett claimed that his excommunication was postdated to May 11 to appear that it had occurred before his resignation
- Response to claim: 73 - "It is entirely plausible that Bennett was then privy to Smith's domestic matters"
- Response to claim: 73 - "In the spring of 1842, the two men quarreled and Smith had Bennett excommunicated"
- Response to claim: 75 - Zina and Henry Jacobs "were apparently willing to let the prophet insinuate himself into their marriage"
- Response to claim: 75 - "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….'"
- Response to claim: 75 - Joseph's diary and the History of the Church do not "give any hint of conjugal contacts Smith might have had with this wife"
- Response to claim: 77 - "Even though Zina was pregnant with Henry's child when she married Joseph...she and her children would be Joseph's 'eternal possessions,' unconnected to Henry"
- Response to claim: 77 - Brigham Young advised Henry Jacobs "to find a wife who could be his eternal partner"
- Response to claim: 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"
- Response to claim: 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"
- Response to claim: 79 - 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"
- Response to claim: 80 n. 63 - "There is no DNA connection" between Joseph Smith and Oliver Buell
Response to claim: 53 - 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'"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
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.'"Author's sources:
- Smith, Letter to "Brother and Sister [Newel K.] Whitney, and &c.," Nauvoo, Illinois, Aug. 18, 1842, Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The mistake: The author commonly exploits the presentist fallacy in the matter of Joseph's wives' ages. The author also contradicts himself on p. 65: "Joseph requested that Sarah Ann Whitney visit him and ‘nock at the window...."Gregory L. Smith, A review of Nauvoo Polygamy:...but we called it celestial marriage by George D. Smith. FARMS Review, Vol. 20, Issue 2. (Detailed book review) Whitney "love letter" (edit)
Ages of wives (edit)
- Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Loaded and prejudicial language
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Romance
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Presentism
Sarah Ann Whitney
The age of Joseph Smith's wives.
Summary: How old were Joseph Smith's plural wives?Divine manifestations to plural wives and families
Summary: Many members who were taught about plural marriage were initially reluctant or appalled; many reported miraculous divine manifestations convincing them of the truth of the doctrine.Did Joseph Smith write a "love letter" to his plural wife Sarah Ann Whitney to request a secret rendezvous?
On 18 August 1842, Joseph Smith wrote a letter to the parents of Sarah Ann Whitney, who had become his plural wife three weeks earlier, asking them to visit him while he was in hiding.
Critics of the Church would have us believe that this is a private, secret "love letter" from Joseph to Sarah Ann, however, Joseph wrote this letter to the Whitney's, addressing it to Sarah's parents. The "matter" to which he refers is likely the administration of ordinances rather than the arrangement of some sort of private tryst with one of his plural wives. Why would one invite your bride's parents to such an encounter? Joseph doesn't want Emma gone because he wants to be alone with Sarah Ann—a feat that would be difficult to accomplish with her parents there—he wants Emma gone either because she is opposed to plural marriage (the contention that would result from an encounter between Emma and the Whitney's just a few weeks after Joseph's sealing to Sarah Ann would hardly be conducive to having the spirit present in order to "git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads"), or because she may have been followed or spied upon by Joseph's enemies, putting either Joseph or the Whitneys in danger.
The Prophet was in hiding as a result of the assassination attempt that had been made on Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs
On the 16th of August, 1842, while Joseph was in hiding at the Sayer's, Emma expressed concern for Joseph's safety. She sent a letter to Joseph in which she noted,
There are more ways than one to take care of you, and I believe that you can still direct in your business concerns if we are all of us prudent in the matter. If it was pleasant weather I should contrive to see you this evening, but I dare not run too much of a risk, on account of so many going to see you. (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.6, p.109)
It is evident that there was concern on Emma's part that Joseph's hiding place would be discovered because of all the people visiting Joseph, particularly if they were in the company of Emma
Joseph wrote the next day in his journal,
Several rumors were afloat in the city, intimating that my retreat had been discovered, and that it was no longer safe for me to remain at Brother Sayers'; consequently Emma came to see me at night, and informed me of the report. It was considered wisdom that I should remove immediately, and accordingly I departed in company with Emma and Brother Derby, and went to Carlos Granger's, who lived in the north-east part of the city. Here we were kindly received and well treated." (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.6, pp. 117-118)
The next day, while in hiding at the Granger's, Joseph wrote a letter to three members of the Whitney family inviting them to come visit him
The letter is addressed to "Brother and Sister Whitney, and &c." Scholars agree that the third person referred to was the Whitney's daughter Sarah Ann, to whom Joseph had been sealed in a plural marriage, without Emma's knowledge, three weeks prior. The full letter, with photographs of the original document, was published by Michael Marquardt in 1973,[1] and again in 1984 by Dean C. Jessee in The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith.[2] The complete text of the letter reads as follows (original spelling has been retained):
Nauvoo August 18th 1842
Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.—
I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and <if you> three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me; now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you come <can> come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I <know> it is the will of God that you should comfort <me> now in this time of affliction, or not at[ta]l now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I <will> tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you wi will pardon me for my earnest=ness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, <and> affectionate, companion, and friend.
Joseph Smith
Some critics point to this letter as evidence the Joseph wrote a private and secret "love letter" to Sarah Ann, requesting that she visit him while he was in seclusion. Others believe that the letter was a request to Sarah Ann's parents to bring their daughter to him so that he could obtain "comfort," with the implication that "comfort" involved intimate relations.
How do critics of the Church portray Joseph Smith's letter to the Whitney family as a "love letter"?
Critical treatments of the letter: Was this a "love" letter to Sarah Ann?
Did Joseph Smith write a private and secret "love letter" to Sarah Ann Whitney? Was this letter a request to Sarah Ann's parents to bring her to Joseph? Was Joseph trying to keep Sarah Ann and Emma from encountering one another? Certain sentences extracted from the letter might lead one to believe one or all of these things. Critics use this to their advantage by extracting only the portions of the letter which support the conclusions above. We present here four examples of how the text of the letter has been employed by critics in order to support their position that Joseph was asking the Whitney's to bring Sarah Ann over for an intimate encounter. The text of the full letter is then examined again in light of these treatments.
Critical presentation #1
Consider the following excerpt from a website that is critical of the Church. Portions of the Whitney letter are extracted and presented in the following manner:
... the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty. ... Only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater friendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. ... I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont, dont fail to come to night, I subscribe myself your most obedient, and affectionate, companion, and friend. Joseph Smith.
—’’Rethinking Mormonism’’, "Did Joseph Smith have sex with his wives?" (Web page)
This certainly has all of the elements of a secret "love letter:" The statement that it would not be safe if Emma were there, the request to "burn this letter as soon as you read it," and the stealthy instructions for approaching the house. The question is, who was this letter addressed to? The critics on their web site clearly want you to believe that this was a private letter to Sarah Ann.
Critical presentation #2
Here is the way that Van Wagoner presents selected excerpts of the same letter. In this case, at least, he acknowledges that the letter was addressed to "the Whitney’s," rather than Sarah, but adds his own opinion that it "detailed [Joseph’s] problems in getting to see Sarah Ann without Emma's knowledge:"
My feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us ... if you three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me, now is the time to Afford me succor ... the only thing to be careful is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safety.
—Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, 48.
Critical presentation #3
This version, presented by George D. Smith, presents excerpts from the letter which makes it sound like Joseph was absolutely lusting for the company of Sarah Ann. Smith even makes Napoleon Bonaparte a Joseph Smith doppelgänger by quoting a letter from the future Emperor to Josephine of their first night together:
"I have awakened full of you. The memory of last night has given my senses no rest. . . . What an effect you have on my heart! I send you thousands of kisses—but don’t kiss me. Your kisses sear my blood" (p. xi). George Smith then claims that a "young man of ambition and vision penned his own letter of affection to a young woman. It was the summer of 1842 when thirty-six-year-old Joseph Smith, hiding from the law down by the Mississippi River in Illinois, confessed:"
Smith then compares the excerpts from Napoleon's letter above to portions of the Whitney letter:
My feelings are so strong for you . . . come and see me in this my lonely retreat . . . now is the time to afford me succour . . . I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect saf[e]ty, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me.
—George D. Smith, "Nauvoo Polygamy: We Called It Celestial Marriage," Free Inquiry [Council for Secular Humanism] 28/3 (April–May 2008): 44–46.
Critical presentation #4
Finally, we have a version which acknowledges the full contents of the letter...but only after presenting it in the manner described above numerous times. The author eventually provides the full text of this letter (150 pages after its comparison with Napoleon). Since there are no extant "love letters" from Joseph Smith to any of his plural wives, the mileage that the author of Nauvoo Polygamy..."but we called it celestial marriage" extracts from the single letter to the Whitney's is simply astounding:
- "[i]t was eleven years after the Smiths roomed with the Whitneys that Joseph expressed a romantic interest in their daughter, as well." (p. 31)
- "recommended his friend, whose seventeen-year-old daughter he had just married, should 'come a little a head, and nock…at the window.'" (p. 53)
- "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. (p. 53)
- "As will be seen, conjugal visits appear furtive and constantly shadowed by the threat of disclosure." (p. 63)
- "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." (p. 65)
- "Three weeks after the wedding, Joseph took steps to spend some time with his newest bride." (p. 138)
- "It was the ninth night of Joseph's concealment, and Emma had visited him three times, written him several letters, and penned at least one letter on his behalf…For his part, Joseph's private note about his love for Emma was so endearing it found its way into the official church history. In it, he vowed to be hers 'forevermore.' Yet within this context of reassurance and intimacy, a few hours later the same day, even while Joseph was still in grave danger and when secrecy was of the utmost urgency, he made complicated arrangements for a visit from his fifteenth plural wife, Sarah Ann Whitney." (p. 142)
- "Smith urged his seventeen-year-old bride to 'come to night' and 'comfort' him—but only if Emma had not returned….Joseph judiciously addressed the letter to 'Brother, and Sister, Whitney, and &c." (p. 142-143)
- "Invites Whitneys to visit, Sarah Ann to 'comfort me' if Emma not there. Invitation accepted." (p.. 147)
- "As if Sarah Ann Whitney's liaison were not enough…another marriage took place…." (p. 155)
- "summer 1842 call for an intimate visit from Sarah Ann Whitney…substantiate[s] the intimate relationships he was involved in during those two years." (p. 185)
- "his warning to Sarah Ann to proceed carefully in order to make sure Emma would not find them in their hiding place." (p. 236)
- "Just as Joseph sought comfort from Sarah Ann the day Emma departed from his hideout…." (p. 236)
- "Elizabeth [Whitney] was arranging conjugal visits between her daughter, Sarah Ann, and [Joseph]…." (p. 366)
One must assume that this is the closest thing that the author could find to a love letter, because the "real" love letters from Joseph to his plural wives do not exist. The author had to make do with this one, despite the fact that it did not precisely fit the bill. With judicious pruning, however, it can be made to sound sufficiently salacious to suit the purpose at hand: to "prove" that Joseph lusted after women.
The full story
In contrast to the sources above, Compton actually provides the complete text of the letter up front, and concludes that "[t]he Mormon leader is putting the Whitney's in the difficult position of having to learn about Emma's movements, avoid her, then meet secretly with him" and that the "cloak-and-dagger atmosphere in this letter is typical of Nauvoo polygamy." [3]
What parts of the Whitney letter do the critics not mention?
As always, it is helpful to view the entire set of statements in content. Let's revisit the entire letter, this time with the selections extracted by the critics highlighted:
Nauvoo August 18th 1842
Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.—
I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and <if you> three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me; now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you come <can> come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I <know> it is the will of God that you should comfort <me> now in this time of affliction, or not at[ta]l now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I <will> tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you wi will pardon me for my earnest=ness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, <and> affectionate, companion, and friend.
Joseph Smith
So, let’s take a look at the portions of the letter that are not highlighted.
Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.—
The letter is addressed to "Brother and Sister Whitney." Sarah Ann is not mentioned by name, but is included as "&c.," which is the equivalent of saying "and so on," or "etc." This hardly implies that what follows is a private "love letter" to Sarah Ann herself.
Could this have been an appeal to Sarah's parents to bring her to Joseph? In Todd Compton's opinion, Joseph "cautiously avoids writing Sarah's name." [4] However, Joseph stated in the letter who he wanted to talk to:
I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams;
Joseph wants to talk to "you three," meaning Newel, Elizabeth and Sarah Ann.
What was the real purpose of the letter written by Joseph Smith to the parents of Sarah Ann Whitney?
The one portion of the letter in which Joseph actually gives a reason for this meeting is often excluded by critics
Interestingly enough, the one portion of the letter in which Joseph actually gives a reason for this meeting is often excluded by critics:
..one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you wi will pardon me for my earnest=ness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me...
According to Richard L. Bushman, this may have been "a reference perhaps to the sealing of Newel and Elizabeth in eternal marriage three days later." [5] Compton adds, "This was not just a meeting of husband and plural wife, it was a meeting with Sarah's family, with a religious aspect.[6]
Joseph needed to have the company of friends who supported him
In addition to the stated purpose of the meeting, Joseph "may have been a lonely man who needed people around him every moment." [7] Consider this phrase (included in Van Wagoner's treatment, but excluded by the others):
...it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am al[l]ied, do love me, now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile. (emphasis added)
These are not the words of a man asking his secret lover to meet him for a private tryst—they are the words of a man who wants the company of friends.
"...when Emma comes then you cannot be safe"
So, what about Emma? The letter certainly contains dire warnings about having the Whitney's avoid an encounter with Emma. We examine several possible reasons for the warning about Emma. Keep in mind Emma's stated concern just two days prior,
If it was pleasant weather I should contrive to see you this evening, but I dare not run too much of a risk, on account of so many going to see you. (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.6, p.109)
Joseph wished to discuss and/or perform a sealing ordinance that Emma had not yet received
Joseph had been sealed to Sarah Ann three weeks before without Emma's knowledge.[8] Joseph may have wished to offer a sealing blessing to Newel and Elizabeth Whitney at this time. Given Joseph's indication to the Whitneys that he wished to "git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads," and the fact that Emma herself was not sealed until she consented to the doctrine of plural marriage nine months later, Joseph may have felt that Emma’s presence would create an uncomfortable situation for all involved—particularly if she became aware of his sealing to Sarah Ann.
Joseph wished to avoid involving his friends in case he were found by those looking for him
If Joseph was in hiding, he had good reason to avoid being found (hence the request to burn the letter that disclosed his location). He would also not want his friends present in case he were to be found. Anyone that was searching for Joseph knew that Emma could lead them to him if they simply observed and followed her. If this were the case, the most dangerous time for the Whitney's to visit Joseph may have been when Emma was there—not necessarily because Emma would have been angered by finding Sarah Ann (after all, Emma did not know about the sealing, and she would have found all three Whitney's there—not just Sarah Ann), but because hostile men might have found the Whitney's with Joseph. Note that Joseph's letter states that "when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible." Joseph wanted the Whitneys to avoid observation by anyone, and not just by Emma.
See Biography:
- A biography of Sarah Ann Whitney may be viewed on Brian and Laura Hales' website "josephsmithspolygamy.org".
Critical sources |
|
Notes
- ↑ Michael Marquardt, 1973 pamphlet "The Strange Marriages of Sarah Ann Whitney to Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet, Joseph C. Kingsbury, and Heber C. Kimball," George Albert Smith Family Papers, Manuscript 36, Box 1, Early Smith Documents, 1731-1849, Folder 18, in the Special Collections, Western Americana, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (source). The original is in the Church Archives.
- ↑ Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, [original edition] (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1984), 539–540. ISBN 0877479747. GL direct link
- ↑ Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 350. ( Index of claims )
- ↑ Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 349. ( Index of claims )
- ↑ Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 473.
- ↑ Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 350. ( Index of claims )
- ↑ Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 473.
- ↑ Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 473.
References
Sarah Ann Whitney
The age of Joseph Smith's wives.
Summary: How old were Joseph Smith's plural wives?Divine manifestations to plural wives and families
Summary: Many members who were taught about plural marriage were initially reluctant or appalled; many reported miraculous divine manifestations convincing them of the truth of the doctrine.Did Joseph Smith write a "love letter" to his plural wife Sarah Ann Whitney to request a secret rendezvous?
On 18 August 1842, Joseph Smith wrote a letter to the parents of Sarah Ann Whitney, who had become his plural wife three weeks earlier, asking them to visit him while he was in hiding.
Critics of the Church would have us believe that this is a private, secret "love letter" from Joseph to Sarah Ann, however, Joseph wrote this letter to the Whitney's, addressing it to Sarah's parents. The "matter" to which he refers is likely the administration of ordinances rather than the arrangement of some sort of private tryst with one of his plural wives. Why would one invite your bride's parents to such an encounter? Joseph doesn't want Emma gone because he wants to be alone with Sarah Ann—a feat that would be difficult to accomplish with her parents there—he wants Emma gone either because she is opposed to plural marriage (the contention that would result from an encounter between Emma and the Whitney's just a few weeks after Joseph's sealing to Sarah Ann would hardly be conducive to having the spirit present in order to "git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads"), or because she may have been followed or spied upon by Joseph's enemies, putting either Joseph or the Whitneys in danger.
The Prophet was in hiding as a result of the assassination attempt that had been made on Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs
On the 16th of August, 1842, while Joseph was in hiding at the Sayer's, Emma expressed concern for Joseph's safety. She sent a letter to Joseph in which she noted,
There are more ways than one to take care of you, and I believe that you can still direct in your business concerns if we are all of us prudent in the matter. If it was pleasant weather I should contrive to see you this evening, but I dare not run too much of a risk, on account of so many going to see you. (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.6, p.109)
It is evident that there was concern on Emma's part that Joseph's hiding place would be discovered because of all the people visiting Joseph, particularly if they were in the company of Emma
Joseph wrote the next day in his journal,
Several rumors were afloat in the city, intimating that my retreat had been discovered, and that it was no longer safe for me to remain at Brother Sayers'; consequently Emma came to see me at night, and informed me of the report. It was considered wisdom that I should remove immediately, and accordingly I departed in company with Emma and Brother Derby, and went to Carlos Granger's, who lived in the north-east part of the city. Here we were kindly received and well treated." (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.6, pp. 117-118)
The next day, while in hiding at the Granger's, Joseph wrote a letter to three members of the Whitney family inviting them to come visit him
The letter is addressed to "Brother and Sister Whitney, and &c." Scholars agree that the third person referred to was the Whitney's daughter Sarah Ann, to whom Joseph had been sealed in a plural marriage, without Emma's knowledge, three weeks prior. The full letter, with photographs of the original document, was published by Michael Marquardt in 1973,[1] and again in 1984 by Dean C. Jessee in The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith.[2] The complete text of the letter reads as follows (original spelling has been retained):
Nauvoo August 18th 1842
Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.—
I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and <if you> three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me; now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you come <can> come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I <know> it is the will of God that you should comfort <me> now in this time of affliction, or not at[ta]l now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I <will> tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you wi will pardon me for my earnest=ness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, <and> affectionate, companion, and friend.
Joseph Smith
Some critics point to this letter as evidence the Joseph wrote a private and secret "love letter" to Sarah Ann, requesting that she visit him while he was in seclusion. Others believe that the letter was a request to Sarah Ann's parents to bring their daughter to him so that he could obtain "comfort," with the implication that "comfort" involved intimate relations.
How do critics of the Church portray Joseph Smith's letter to the Whitney family as a "love letter"?
Critical treatments of the letter: Was this a "love" letter to Sarah Ann?
Did Joseph Smith write a private and secret "love letter" to Sarah Ann Whitney? Was this letter a request to Sarah Ann's parents to bring her to Joseph? Was Joseph trying to keep Sarah Ann and Emma from encountering one another? Certain sentences extracted from the letter might lead one to believe one or all of these things. Critics use this to their advantage by extracting only the portions of the letter which support the conclusions above. We present here four examples of how the text of the letter has been employed by critics in order to support their position that Joseph was asking the Whitney's to bring Sarah Ann over for an intimate encounter. The text of the full letter is then examined again in light of these treatments.
Critical presentation #1
Consider the following excerpt from a website that is critical of the Church. Portions of the Whitney letter are extracted and presented in the following manner:
... the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty. ... Only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater friendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. ... I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont, dont fail to come to night, I subscribe myself your most obedient, and affectionate, companion, and friend. Joseph Smith.
—’’Rethinking Mormonism’’, "Did Joseph Smith have sex with his wives?" (Web page)
This certainly has all of the elements of a secret "love letter:" The statement that it would not be safe if Emma were there, the request to "burn this letter as soon as you read it," and the stealthy instructions for approaching the house. The question is, who was this letter addressed to? The critics on their web site clearly want you to believe that this was a private letter to Sarah Ann.
Critical presentation #2
Here is the way that Van Wagoner presents selected excerpts of the same letter. In this case, at least, he acknowledges that the letter was addressed to "the Whitney’s," rather than Sarah, but adds his own opinion that it "detailed [Joseph’s] problems in getting to see Sarah Ann without Emma's knowledge:"
My feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us ... if you three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me, now is the time to Afford me succor ... the only thing to be careful is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safety.
—Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, 48.
Critical presentation #3
This version, presented by George D. Smith, presents excerpts from the letter which makes it sound like Joseph was absolutely lusting for the company of Sarah Ann. Smith even makes Napoleon Bonaparte a Joseph Smith doppelgänger by quoting a letter from the future Emperor to Josephine of their first night together:
"I have awakened full of you. The memory of last night has given my senses no rest. . . . What an effect you have on my heart! I send you thousands of kisses—but don’t kiss me. Your kisses sear my blood" (p. xi). George Smith then claims that a "young man of ambition and vision penned his own letter of affection to a young woman. It was the summer of 1842 when thirty-six-year-old Joseph Smith, hiding from the law down by the Mississippi River in Illinois, confessed:"
Smith then compares the excerpts from Napoleon's letter above to portions of the Whitney letter:
My feelings are so strong for you . . . come and see me in this my lonely retreat . . . now is the time to afford me succour . . . I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect saf[e]ty, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me.
—George D. Smith, "Nauvoo Polygamy: We Called It Celestial Marriage," Free Inquiry [Council for Secular Humanism] 28/3 (April–May 2008): 44–46.
Critical presentation #4
Finally, we have a version which acknowledges the full contents of the letter...but only after presenting it in the manner described above numerous times. The author eventually provides the full text of this letter (150 pages after its comparison with Napoleon). Since there are no extant "love letters" from Joseph Smith to any of his plural wives, the mileage that the author of Nauvoo Polygamy..."but we called it celestial marriage" extracts from the single letter to the Whitney's is simply astounding:
- "[i]t was eleven years after the Smiths roomed with the Whitneys that Joseph expressed a romantic interest in their daughter, as well." (p. 31)
- "recommended his friend, whose seventeen-year-old daughter he had just married, should 'come a little a head, and nock…at the window.'" (p. 53)
- "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. (p. 53)
- "As will be seen, conjugal visits appear furtive and constantly shadowed by the threat of disclosure." (p. 63)
- "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." (p. 65)
- "Three weeks after the wedding, Joseph took steps to spend some time with his newest bride." (p. 138)
- "It was the ninth night of Joseph's concealment, and Emma had visited him three times, written him several letters, and penned at least one letter on his behalf…For his part, Joseph's private note about his love for Emma was so endearing it found its way into the official church history. In it, he vowed to be hers 'forevermore.' Yet within this context of reassurance and intimacy, a few hours later the same day, even while Joseph was still in grave danger and when secrecy was of the utmost urgency, he made complicated arrangements for a visit from his fifteenth plural wife, Sarah Ann Whitney." (p. 142)
- "Smith urged his seventeen-year-old bride to 'come to night' and 'comfort' him—but only if Emma had not returned….Joseph judiciously addressed the letter to 'Brother, and Sister, Whitney, and &c." (p. 142-143)
- "Invites Whitneys to visit, Sarah Ann to 'comfort me' if Emma not there. Invitation accepted." (p.. 147)
- "As if Sarah Ann Whitney's liaison were not enough…another marriage took place…." (p. 155)
- "summer 1842 call for an intimate visit from Sarah Ann Whitney…substantiate[s] the intimate relationships he was involved in during those two years." (p. 185)
- "his warning to Sarah Ann to proceed carefully in order to make sure Emma would not find them in their hiding place." (p. 236)
- "Just as Joseph sought comfort from Sarah Ann the day Emma departed from his hideout…." (p. 236)
- "Elizabeth [Whitney] was arranging conjugal visits between her daughter, Sarah Ann, and [Joseph]…." (p. 366)
One must assume that this is the closest thing that the author could find to a love letter, because the "real" love letters from Joseph to his plural wives do not exist. The author had to make do with this one, despite the fact that it did not precisely fit the bill. With judicious pruning, however, it can be made to sound sufficiently salacious to suit the purpose at hand: to "prove" that Joseph lusted after women.
The full story
In contrast to the sources above, Compton actually provides the complete text of the letter up front, and concludes that "[t]he Mormon leader is putting the Whitney's in the difficult position of having to learn about Emma's movements, avoid her, then meet secretly with him" and that the "cloak-and-dagger atmosphere in this letter is typical of Nauvoo polygamy." [3]
What parts of the Whitney letter do the critics not mention?
As always, it is helpful to view the entire set of statements in content. Let's revisit the entire letter, this time with the selections extracted by the critics highlighted:
Nauvoo August 18th 1842
Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.—
I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and <if you> three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me; now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you come <can> come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I <know> it is the will of God that you should comfort <me> now in this time of affliction, or not at[ta]l now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I <will> tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you wi will pardon me for my earnest=ness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, <and> affectionate, companion, and friend.
Joseph Smith
So, let’s take a look at the portions of the letter that are not highlighted.
Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.—
The letter is addressed to "Brother and Sister Whitney." Sarah Ann is not mentioned by name, but is included as "&c.," which is the equivalent of saying "and so on," or "etc." This hardly implies that what follows is a private "love letter" to Sarah Ann herself.
Could this have been an appeal to Sarah's parents to bring her to Joseph? In Todd Compton's opinion, Joseph "cautiously avoids writing Sarah's name." [4] However, Joseph stated in the letter who he wanted to talk to:
I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams;
Joseph wants to talk to "you three," meaning Newel, Elizabeth and Sarah Ann.
What was the real purpose of the letter written by Joseph Smith to the parents of Sarah Ann Whitney?
The one portion of the letter in which Joseph actually gives a reason for this meeting is often excluded by critics
Interestingly enough, the one portion of the letter in which Joseph actually gives a reason for this meeting is often excluded by critics:
..one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you wi will pardon me for my earnest=ness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me...
According to Richard L. Bushman, this may have been "a reference perhaps to the sealing of Newel and Elizabeth in eternal marriage three days later." [5] Compton adds, "This was not just a meeting of husband and plural wife, it was a meeting with Sarah's family, with a religious aspect.[6]
Joseph needed to have the company of friends who supported him
In addition to the stated purpose of the meeting, Joseph "may have been a lonely man who needed people around him every moment." [7] Consider this phrase (included in Van Wagoner's treatment, but excluded by the others):
...it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am al[l]ied, do love me, now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile. (emphasis added)
These are not the words of a man asking his secret lover to meet him for a private tryst—they are the words of a man who wants the company of friends.
"...when Emma comes then you cannot be safe"
So, what about Emma? The letter certainly contains dire warnings about having the Whitney's avoid an encounter with Emma. We examine several possible reasons for the warning about Emma. Keep in mind Emma's stated concern just two days prior,
If it was pleasant weather I should contrive to see you this evening, but I dare not run too much of a risk, on account of so many going to see you. (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.6, p.109)
Joseph wished to discuss and/or perform a sealing ordinance that Emma had not yet received
Joseph had been sealed to Sarah Ann three weeks before without Emma's knowledge.[8] Joseph may have wished to offer a sealing blessing to Newel and Elizabeth Whitney at this time. Given Joseph's indication to the Whitneys that he wished to "git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads," and the fact that Emma herself was not sealed until she consented to the doctrine of plural marriage nine months later, Joseph may have felt that Emma’s presence would create an uncomfortable situation for all involved—particularly if she became aware of his sealing to Sarah Ann.
Joseph wished to avoid involving his friends in case he were found by those looking for him
If Joseph was in hiding, he had good reason to avoid being found (hence the request to burn the letter that disclosed his location). He would also not want his friends present in case he were to be found. Anyone that was searching for Joseph knew that Emma could lead them to him if they simply observed and followed her. If this were the case, the most dangerous time for the Whitney's to visit Joseph may have been when Emma was there—not necessarily because Emma would have been angered by finding Sarah Ann (after all, Emma did not know about the sealing, and she would have found all three Whitney's there—not just Sarah Ann), but because hostile men might have found the Whitney's with Joseph. Note that Joseph's letter states that "when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible." Joseph wanted the Whitneys to avoid observation by anyone, and not just by Emma.
See Biography:
- A biography of Sarah Ann Whitney may be viewed on Brian and Laura Hales' website "josephsmithspolygamy.org".
Critical sources |
|
Notes
- ↑ Michael Marquardt, 1973 pamphlet "The Strange Marriages of Sarah Ann Whitney to Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet, Joseph C. Kingsbury, and Heber C. Kimball," George Albert Smith Family Papers, Manuscript 36, Box 1, Early Smith Documents, 1731-1849, Folder 18, in the Special Collections, Western Americana, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (source). The original is in the Church Archives.
- ↑ Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, [original edition] (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1984), 539–540. ISBN 0877479747. GL direct link
- ↑ Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 350. ( Index of claims )
- ↑ Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 349. ( Index of claims )
- ↑ Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 473.
- ↑ Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 350. ( Index of claims )
- ↑ Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 473.
- ↑ Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 473.
References
Sarah Ann Whitney
The age of Joseph Smith's wives.
Summary: How old were Joseph Smith's plural wives?Divine manifestations to plural wives and families
Summary: Many members who were taught about plural marriage were initially reluctant or appalled; many reported miraculous divine manifestations convincing them of the truth of the doctrine.Did Joseph Smith write a "love letter" to his plural wife Sarah Ann Whitney to request a secret rendezvous?
On 18 August 1842, Joseph Smith wrote a letter to the parents of Sarah Ann Whitney, who had become his plural wife three weeks earlier, asking them to visit him while he was in hiding.
Critics of the Church would have us believe that this is a private, secret "love letter" from Joseph to Sarah Ann, however, Joseph wrote this letter to the Whitney's, addressing it to Sarah's parents. The "matter" to which he refers is likely the administration of ordinances rather than the arrangement of some sort of private tryst with one of his plural wives. Why would one invite your bride's parents to such an encounter? Joseph doesn't want Emma gone because he wants to be alone with Sarah Ann—a feat that would be difficult to accomplish with her parents there—he wants Emma gone either because she is opposed to plural marriage (the contention that would result from an encounter between Emma and the Whitney's just a few weeks after Joseph's sealing to Sarah Ann would hardly be conducive to having the spirit present in order to "git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads"), or because she may have been followed or spied upon by Joseph's enemies, putting either Joseph or the Whitneys in danger.
The Prophet was in hiding as a result of the assassination attempt that had been made on Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs
On the 16th of August, 1842, while Joseph was in hiding at the Sayer's, Emma expressed concern for Joseph's safety. She sent a letter to Joseph in which she noted,
There are more ways than one to take care of you, and I believe that you can still direct in your business concerns if we are all of us prudent in the matter. If it was pleasant weather I should contrive to see you this evening, but I dare not run too much of a risk, on account of so many going to see you. (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.6, p.109)
It is evident that there was concern on Emma's part that Joseph's hiding place would be discovered because of all the people visiting Joseph, particularly if they were in the company of Emma
Joseph wrote the next day in his journal,
Several rumors were afloat in the city, intimating that my retreat had been discovered, and that it was no longer safe for me to remain at Brother Sayers'; consequently Emma came to see me at night, and informed me of the report. It was considered wisdom that I should remove immediately, and accordingly I departed in company with Emma and Brother Derby, and went to Carlos Granger's, who lived in the north-east part of the city. Here we were kindly received and well treated." (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.6, pp. 117-118)
The next day, while in hiding at the Granger's, Joseph wrote a letter to three members of the Whitney family inviting them to come visit him
The letter is addressed to "Brother and Sister Whitney, and &c." Scholars agree that the third person referred to was the Whitney's daughter Sarah Ann, to whom Joseph had been sealed in a plural marriage, without Emma's knowledge, three weeks prior. The full letter, with photographs of the original document, was published by Michael Marquardt in 1973,[1] and again in 1984 by Dean C. Jessee in The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith.[2] The complete text of the letter reads as follows (original spelling has been retained):
Nauvoo August 18th 1842
Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.—
I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and <if you> three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me; now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you come <can> come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I <know> it is the will of God that you should comfort <me> now in this time of affliction, or not at[ta]l now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I <will> tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you wi will pardon me for my earnest=ness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, <and> affectionate, companion, and friend.
Joseph Smith
Some critics point to this letter as evidence the Joseph wrote a private and secret "love letter" to Sarah Ann, requesting that she visit him while he was in seclusion. Others believe that the letter was a request to Sarah Ann's parents to bring their daughter to him so that he could obtain "comfort," with the implication that "comfort" involved intimate relations.
How do critics of the Church portray Joseph Smith's letter to the Whitney family as a "love letter"?
Critical treatments of the letter: Was this a "love" letter to Sarah Ann?
Did Joseph Smith write a private and secret "love letter" to Sarah Ann Whitney? Was this letter a request to Sarah Ann's parents to bring her to Joseph? Was Joseph trying to keep Sarah Ann and Emma from encountering one another? Certain sentences extracted from the letter might lead one to believe one or all of these things. Critics use this to their advantage by extracting only the portions of the letter which support the conclusions above. We present here four examples of how the text of the letter has been employed by critics in order to support their position that Joseph was asking the Whitney's to bring Sarah Ann over for an intimate encounter. The text of the full letter is then examined again in light of these treatments.
Critical presentation #1
Consider the following excerpt from a website that is critical of the Church. Portions of the Whitney letter are extracted and presented in the following manner:
... the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty. ... Only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater friendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. ... I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont, dont fail to come to night, I subscribe myself your most obedient, and affectionate, companion, and friend. Joseph Smith.
—’’Rethinking Mormonism’’, "Did Joseph Smith have sex with his wives?" (Web page)
This certainly has all of the elements of a secret "love letter:" The statement that it would not be safe if Emma were there, the request to "burn this letter as soon as you read it," and the stealthy instructions for approaching the house. The question is, who was this letter addressed to? The critics on their web site clearly want you to believe that this was a private letter to Sarah Ann.
Critical presentation #2
Here is the way that Van Wagoner presents selected excerpts of the same letter. In this case, at least, he acknowledges that the letter was addressed to "the Whitney’s," rather than Sarah, but adds his own opinion that it "detailed [Joseph’s] problems in getting to see Sarah Ann without Emma's knowledge:"
My feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us ... if you three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me, now is the time to Afford me succor ... the only thing to be careful is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safety.
—Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, 48.
Critical presentation #3
This version, presented by George D. Smith, presents excerpts from the letter which makes it sound like Joseph was absolutely lusting for the company of Sarah Ann. Smith even makes Napoleon Bonaparte a Joseph Smith doppelgänger by quoting a letter from the future Emperor to Josephine of their first night together:
"I have awakened full of you. The memory of last night has given my senses no rest. . . . What an effect you have on my heart! I send you thousands of kisses—but don’t kiss me. Your kisses sear my blood" (p. xi). George Smith then claims that a "young man of ambition and vision penned his own letter of affection to a young woman. It was the summer of 1842 when thirty-six-year-old Joseph Smith, hiding from the law down by the Mississippi River in Illinois, confessed:"
Smith then compares the excerpts from Napoleon's letter above to portions of the Whitney letter:
My feelings are so strong for you . . . come and see me in this my lonely retreat . . . now is the time to afford me succour . . . I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect saf[e]ty, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me.
—George D. Smith, "Nauvoo Polygamy: We Called It Celestial Marriage," Free Inquiry [Council for Secular Humanism] 28/3 (April–May 2008): 44–46.
Critical presentation #4
Finally, we have a version which acknowledges the full contents of the letter...but only after presenting it in the manner described above numerous times. The author eventually provides the full text of this letter (150 pages after its comparison with Napoleon). Since there are no extant "love letters" from Joseph Smith to any of his plural wives, the mileage that the author of Nauvoo Polygamy..."but we called it celestial marriage" extracts from the single letter to the Whitney's is simply astounding:
- "[i]t was eleven years after the Smiths roomed with the Whitneys that Joseph expressed a romantic interest in their daughter, as well." (p. 31)
- "recommended his friend, whose seventeen-year-old daughter he had just married, should 'come a little a head, and nock…at the window.'" (p. 53)
- "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. (p. 53)
- "As will be seen, conjugal visits appear furtive and constantly shadowed by the threat of disclosure." (p. 63)
- "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." (p. 65)
- "Three weeks after the wedding, Joseph took steps to spend some time with his newest bride." (p. 138)
- "It was the ninth night of Joseph's concealment, and Emma had visited him three times, written him several letters, and penned at least one letter on his behalf…For his part, Joseph's private note about his love for Emma was so endearing it found its way into the official church history. In it, he vowed to be hers 'forevermore.' Yet within this context of reassurance and intimacy, a few hours later the same day, even while Joseph was still in grave danger and when secrecy was of the utmost urgency, he made complicated arrangements for a visit from his fifteenth plural wife, Sarah Ann Whitney." (p. 142)
- "Smith urged his seventeen-year-old bride to 'come to night' and 'comfort' him—but only if Emma had not returned….Joseph judiciously addressed the letter to 'Brother, and Sister, Whitney, and &c." (p. 142-143)
- "Invites Whitneys to visit, Sarah Ann to 'comfort me' if Emma not there. Invitation accepted." (p.. 147)
- "As if Sarah Ann Whitney's liaison were not enough…another marriage took place…." (p. 155)
- "summer 1842 call for an intimate visit from Sarah Ann Whitney…substantiate[s] the intimate relationships he was involved in during those two years." (p. 185)
- "his warning to Sarah Ann to proceed carefully in order to make sure Emma would not find them in their hiding place." (p. 236)
- "Just as Joseph sought comfort from Sarah Ann the day Emma departed from his hideout…." (p. 236)
- "Elizabeth [Whitney] was arranging conjugal visits between her daughter, Sarah Ann, and [Joseph]…." (p. 366)
One must assume that this is the closest thing that the author could find to a love letter, because the "real" love letters from Joseph to his plural wives do not exist. The author had to make do with this one, despite the fact that it did not precisely fit the bill. With judicious pruning, however, it can be made to sound sufficiently salacious to suit the purpose at hand: to "prove" that Joseph lusted after women.
The full story
In contrast to the sources above, Compton actually provides the complete text of the letter up front, and concludes that "[t]he Mormon leader is putting the Whitney's in the difficult position of having to learn about Emma's movements, avoid her, then meet secretly with him" and that the "cloak-and-dagger atmosphere in this letter is typical of Nauvoo polygamy." [3]
What parts of the Whitney letter do the critics not mention?
As always, it is helpful to view the entire set of statements in content. Let's revisit the entire letter, this time with the selections extracted by the critics highlighted:
Nauvoo August 18th 1842
Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.—
I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and <if you> three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me; now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you come <can> come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I <know> it is the will of God that you should comfort <me> now in this time of affliction, or not at[ta]l now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I <will> tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you wi will pardon me for my earnest=ness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, <and> affectionate, companion, and friend.
Joseph Smith
So, let’s take a look at the portions of the letter that are not highlighted.
Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.—
The letter is addressed to "Brother and Sister Whitney." Sarah Ann is not mentioned by name, but is included as "&c.," which is the equivalent of saying "and so on," or "etc." This hardly implies that what follows is a private "love letter" to Sarah Ann herself.
Could this have been an appeal to Sarah's parents to bring her to Joseph? In Todd Compton's opinion, Joseph "cautiously avoids writing Sarah's name." [4] However, Joseph stated in the letter who he wanted to talk to:
I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams;
Joseph wants to talk to "you three," meaning Newel, Elizabeth and Sarah Ann.
What was the real purpose of the letter written by Joseph Smith to the parents of Sarah Ann Whitney?
The one portion of the letter in which Joseph actually gives a reason for this meeting is often excluded by critics
Interestingly enough, the one portion of the letter in which Joseph actually gives a reason for this meeting is often excluded by critics:
..one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you wi will pardon me for my earnest=ness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me...
According to Richard L. Bushman, this may have been "a reference perhaps to the sealing of Newel and Elizabeth in eternal marriage three days later." [5] Compton adds, "This was not just a meeting of husband and plural wife, it was a meeting with Sarah's family, with a religious aspect.[6]
Joseph needed to have the company of friends who supported him
In addition to the stated purpose of the meeting, Joseph "may have been a lonely man who needed people around him every moment." [7] Consider this phrase (included in Van Wagoner's treatment, but excluded by the others):
...it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am al[l]ied, do love me, now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile. (emphasis added)
These are not the words of a man asking his secret lover to meet him for a private tryst—they are the words of a man who wants the company of friends.
"...when Emma comes then you cannot be safe"
So, what about Emma? The letter certainly contains dire warnings about having the Whitney's avoid an encounter with Emma. We examine several possible reasons for the warning about Emma. Keep in mind Emma's stated concern just two days prior,
If it was pleasant weather I should contrive to see you this evening, but I dare not run too much of a risk, on account of so many going to see you. (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.6, p.109)
Joseph wished to discuss and/or perform a sealing ordinance that Emma had not yet received
Joseph had been sealed to Sarah Ann three weeks before without Emma's knowledge.[8] Joseph may have wished to offer a sealing blessing to Newel and Elizabeth Whitney at this time. Given Joseph's indication to the Whitneys that he wished to "git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads," and the fact that Emma herself was not sealed until she consented to the doctrine of plural marriage nine months later, Joseph may have felt that Emma’s presence would create an uncomfortable situation for all involved—particularly if she became aware of his sealing to Sarah Ann.
Joseph wished to avoid involving his friends in case he were found by those looking for him
If Joseph was in hiding, he had good reason to avoid being found (hence the request to burn the letter that disclosed his location). He would also not want his friends present in case he were to be found. Anyone that was searching for Joseph knew that Emma could lead them to him if they simply observed and followed her. If this were the case, the most dangerous time for the Whitney's to visit Joseph may have been when Emma was there—not necessarily because Emma would have been angered by finding Sarah Ann (after all, Emma did not know about the sealing, and she would have found all three Whitney's there—not just Sarah Ann), but because hostile men might have found the Whitney's with Joseph. Note that Joseph's letter states that "when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible." Joseph wanted the Whitneys to avoid observation by anyone, and not just by Emma.
See Biography:
- A biography of Sarah Ann Whitney may be viewed on Brian and Laura Hales' website "josephsmithspolygamy.org".
Critical sources |
|
Notes
- ↑ Michael Marquardt, 1973 pamphlet "The Strange Marriages of Sarah Ann Whitney to Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet, Joseph C. Kingsbury, and Heber C. Kimball," George Albert Smith Family Papers, Manuscript 36, Box 1, Early Smith Documents, 1731-1849, Folder 18, in the Special Collections, Western Americana, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (source). The original is in the Church Archives.
- ↑ Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, [original edition] (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1984), 539–540. ISBN 0877479747. GL direct link
- ↑ Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 350. ( Index of claims )
- ↑ Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 349. ( Index of claims )
- ↑ Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 473.
- ↑ Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 350. ( Index of claims )
- ↑ Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 473.
- ↑ Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 473.
References
Response to claim: 53 - "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'"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
Author's quote: 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."Author's sources: *Whitney letter, Aug. 18, 1842.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The mistake: Joseph is speaking to all three Whitneys, and the author again distorts the letter as at the beginning of the book.Whitney "love letter" (edit)
- Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Whitney letter
- Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Loaded and prejudicial language
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Romance
- Gregory L. Smith, A review of Nauvoo Polygamy:...but we called it celestial marriage by George D. Smith. FARMS Review, Vol. 20, Issue 2. (Detailed book review)
Response to claim: 53 - "Emma Hale, Joseph's wife of fifteen years, had left his side just twenty-four hours earlier. Now Joseph declared that he was "lonesome"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
Author's quote: "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.Author's sources:
- Whitney letter, Aug. 18, 1842.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
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.- Gregory L. Smith, A review of Nauvoo Polygamy:...but we called it celestial marriage by George D. Smith. FARMS Review, Vol. 20, Issue 2. (Detailed book review)
Whitney "love letter" (edit)
- Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Whitney letter
- Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Loaded and prejudicial language
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Romance
Response to claim: 54 - “Did Sarah Ann keep this rendezvous on that humid summer night? Unfortunately, the documentary record is silent"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
Author's quote: “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."
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
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.
- Gregory L. Smith, A review of Nauvoo Polygamy:...but we called it celestial marriage by George D. Smith. FARMS Review, Vol. 20, Issue 2. (Detailed book review)
Whitney "love letter" (edit)
- Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Whitney letter
- Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Loaded and prejudicial language
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Romance
Response to claim: 54 - The author states that what interested him the most was how Joseph "went about courting…these women"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
The author states that what interested him the most was how Joseph "went about courting…these women."Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
There is no evidence that Joseph did any courting. He often used intermediaries.Womanizing & romance (edit)
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Loaded and prejudicial language
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mind reading
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Romance
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Assumptions and presumptions
Response to claim: 55 - When polygamy was officially abandoned in 1890, that "what previously had been called 'celestial marriage' was subtly redefined to specify something new
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
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."Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The claimed "redefinition" was present from the very beginning of plural marriage. The emphasis changed:Necessary for salvation? (edit)
Response to claim: 55 - "Despite his crowded daily schedule, the prophet interrupted other activities for secret liaisons with women and girls"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
Author's quote: "Despite his crowded daily schedule, the prophet interrupted other activities for secret liaisons with women and girls…."Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
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."Womanizing & romance (edit)
Response to claim: 55 - "Joseph "assured the women and their families that such unions were not only sanctioned but were demanded by heaven"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
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.'"Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The author does not tell us that Joseph had the women get their OWN witness. Women could and did turn Joseph down with no consequences.- Polygamy/Divine manifestations to plural wives and families
- Joseph Smith and polygamy/Did women turn Joseph down
Response to claim: 56 - "There may have been even more wives and plural children"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
The author assumes that "[t]here may have been even more wives and plural children."Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
Anything might have happened. The author provides no evidence. This is the fallacy of probability.Fallacy of probability (edit)
Response to claim: 63 - "conjugal visits appear furtive and constantly shadowed by the threat of disclosure"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
Author's quote: "As will be seen, conjugal visits appear furtive and constantly shadowed by the threat of disclosure."Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
This is pure assumption on the part of the author—he provides no such evidence save his own repeated representation of the Whitney letter.Whitney "love letter" (edit)
Response to claim: 65 - "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"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
Author's quote: “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.”Author's sources: *No citation given
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The letter was addressed to Sarah's parents, not to Sarah.- Internal contradiction: p. 55: The invitation was to Sarah and her parents—[Joseph] "recommended his friend, whose seventeen-year-old daughter he had just married, should 'come a little a head, and nock…at the window.'"
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Contradictions
- Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Whitney letter
- Use of sources—Letter to Whitneys
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Loaded and prejudicial language
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mind reading
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Romance
- Gregory L. Smith, A review of Nauvoo Polygamy:...but we called it celestial marriage by George D. Smith. FARMS Review, Vol. 20, Issue 2. (Detailed book review)
Whitney "love letter" (edit)
Response to claim: 65 - "One of the instrumental people in the inauguration of plural marriage was John Bennett"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
The author claims that "[o]ne of the instrumental people in the inauguration of plural marriage was John [C.] Bennett…."Author's sources: No sources provided
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
The is a huge assumption on the part of the author, presuming that Bennett's adulteries were ever sanctioned by Joseph, or had anything to do with plural marriage.John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett was Joseph Smith's "closest confident"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
The author notes that in 1841, John C. Bennett was Joseph Smith's "closest confident." [ATTENTION!]Author's sources: * No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
The author ignores the fact that Joseph began to distrust Bennett for cause long before their public rupture.John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 65 - Joseph was "sharing power" with John C. Bennett
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
It is claimed that Joseph was "sharing power" with Bennett.Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
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.John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett spoke out against Joseph "and was soon stripped of his offices and titles"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
It is claimed that in 1842, John C. Bennett spoke out against Joseph "and was soon stripped of his offices and titles."Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
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.John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett and Joseph each "accused the other of immoral behavior"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
It is claimed that John C. Bennett and Joseph each "accused the other of immoral behavior."Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
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.John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 65 - While some of John C. Bennett's claims "may have been exaggerations, much of what he reported can be confirmed by other eyewitness accounts"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
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."Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
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.John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett "cannot be merely dismissed as an unfriendly source who fabricated scandal"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
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."Author's sources: *Author's opinion.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
The author never does this weighing for us. Much of what Bennett 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." [1]
John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 65 - John C. Bennett "had an ambitious but colorful background"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
The author claims that "Bennett had an ambitious but colorful background."Author's sources: *No source provided
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
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 (edit)
Response to claim: 66-67 - John C. Bennett "was well positioned to know all about any behind-the-scenes transactions"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
Author's quote: "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.Author's sources: *Smith, Saintly Scoundrel, 56.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
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. [2]
John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 68 - Joseph is merely “feigning impartiality” before going on to practice “undemocratic block voting"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
The author claims that Joseph is merely “feigning impartiality” before going on to practice “undemocratic block voting.”Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
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.Bloc voting (edit)
See NOTE on bloc voting
Response to claim: 69 - Joseph was apparently "undeterred" by reports of a negative assessment of Bennett
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
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.Author's sources: * No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
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."</blockquote>
John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 69 - John C. Bennett was Assistant President of the Church
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
It is noted that John C. Bennett was Assistant President of the Church.Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
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.John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 69 - John C. Bennett had religious influence by being Assistant President of the Church
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
It is claimed that John C. Bennett had religious influence by being Assistant President of the Church.Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
[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."John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 70 - Joseph Smith and John C. Bennett remained confidants until about March the next year (1842)
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
The author claims that Joseph Smith and John C. Bennett remained confidants until about March the next year (1842).Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
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.John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 70 - There seemed to be "no office or honor within reach" that Joseph Smith "did not hasten to grant to" John C. Bennett
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
It is claimed that there seemed to be "no office or honor within reach that Smith did not hasten to grant to Bennett."Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
This is false: Bennett was never inducted into the "Quorum of the Anointed"—those who were receiving the temple endowment from Joseph (see above, 66-67). He was also never made an apostle.John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 70 - "Zina Huntington, who married Henry Jacobs instead but then reconsidered seven months later in response to Joseph's restated interest"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
Author's quote: "Zina Huntington, who married Henry Jacobs instead but then reconsidered seven months later in response to Joseph's restated interest."Author's sources: *No source provide
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event
Zina said the Lord told her what to do.- Zina and Henry Jacobs
- Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry
- Full details: Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men.".
Response to claim: 70-71 - "Joseph soon after married Zina's sister, Presendia, who was also already married"==
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
Author's quote: "Seemingly impatient, Joseph soon after married Zina's sister, Presendia, who was also already married."Author's sources: No source provided.
FAIR's Response
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mind reading
- Full details: Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men."
Question: What did the husband of Presendia L. Huntington know about her sealing to Joseph Smith for eternity?
Presendia's husband Norman left the Church, and since she was unable to be sealed for eternity to her earthly husband, she was sealed to Joseph Smith instead
Presendia Huntington was married to Norman Buell when she was sixteen years old. Both Presendia and Norman originally joined the Church, but Norman later left it while Presendia remained a believing member. Since she was unable to be sealed for eternity to her earthly husband, she was sealed to Joseph Smith instead. Presendia's 1881 biography notes her husband's rejection of the Church as the reason she decided to be sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity,
I was maried to Norman Buell Jan 6th 1827. both joined the Church in in [sic] Kirtland Geauga Co Ohio he left the church in Mo in 1839 the Lord gave me strength to stand alone & keep the faith amid heavy persecution in 1841 I entered into the new & everlasting Covenant was sealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet & Seer & to the best of my ability I have honored Plural Marriage never speking one word against the principal. [3]
An affidavit signed by Presendia on May 1, 1869 states:
Be it remembered that on this first day of May A.D. 1869 personally appeared before me Elias Smith Probate Judge for Said County Presenda Lathrop Huntington \Kimball/ who was by me Sworn in due form of law and upon her oath saith, that on the eleventh day of December A.D. 1841, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock State of Illinois, She was married or Sealed to Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints by Dimick B. Huntington, a High-Priest in Said Church, according to the laws of the Same regulating Marriage; in the presence of Fanny Maria Huntington. [4]
See Biography:
- A biography of Presendia L. Huntington may be viewed on Brian and Laura Hales' website "josephsmithspolygamy.org".
Response to claim: 71 - "Bennett alleged that during the summer and fall of 1841, Smith made unsuccessful advances toward Apostle Orson Pratt's wife, Sarah"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
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."Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
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.John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 72 - 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(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
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."Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
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." [5] He presents no evidence for what explanation Joseph gave Orson, or what Orson believed.Response to claim: 72 - "Meanwhile, Bennett seems to have followed his leader in courting several women himself"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
Author's quote: "Meanwhile, Bennett seems to have followed his leader in courting several women himself."Author's sources: * No source provided
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
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. [6]John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 72 - John C. Bennett resigned from the church on May 17, 1842
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
The author claims that John C. Bennett resigned from the church on May 17, 1842.Author's sources: * Andrew Smith, Saintly Scoundrel, 86–89. (Note that The author does not properly represent the source's contents.)
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
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." [7]John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 72 - John C. Bennett was excommunicated from the Church in "retaliation"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
It is claimed that Bennett was excommunicated from the Church in "retaliation."Author's sources:
- Andrew Smith, Saintly Scoundrel, 86–89.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
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. [8] 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. [9] 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. [10] His Nauvoo reputation in tatters, Bennett left and began plotting his revenge.John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 72 - John C. Bennett claimed that his excommunication was postdated to May 11 to appear that it had occurred before his resignation
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
John C. Bennett claimed that his excommunication was postdated to May 11 to appear that it had occurred before his resignation.Author's sources: *Andrew Smith, Saintly Scoundrel, 86–89.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
(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).
John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 73 - "It is entirely plausible that Bennett was then privy to Smith's domestic matters"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
Author's quote: "It is entirely plausible that Bennett was then privy to Smith's domestic matters."Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
The author wants to rehabilitate Bennett as a source, while glossing over the problems.John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 73 - "In the spring of 1842, the two men quarreled and Smith had Bennett excommunicated"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
The author notes that "[i]n the spring of 1842, the two men quarreled and Smith had Bennett excommunicated…."Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
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.John C. Bennett (edit)
Response to claim: 75 - Zina and Henry Jacobs "were apparently willing to let the prophet insinuate himself into their marriage"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
Zina and Henry Jacobs "were apparently willing to let the prophet insinuate himself into their marriage."Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
- Internal contradiction: compare p. 81
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Loaded and prejudicial language
- Full details: Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men."
Response to claim: 75 - "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(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
Author's quote: "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….'"Author's sources: *History of the Church 4:445.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
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.- Full details: Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men."
Response to claim: 75 - Joseph's diary and the History of the Church do not "give any hint of conjugal contacts Smith might have had with this wife"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
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."
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
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 of Church History (edit)
Response to claim: 77 - "Even though Zina was pregnant with Henry's child when she married Joseph...she and her children would be Joseph's 'eternal possessions,' unconnected to Henry"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
Author's quote: "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."Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
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.- Polygamy/The Law of Adoption
- Full details: Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men."
Sealing takes away families? (edit)
Response to claim: 77 - Brigham Young advised Henry Jacobs "to find a wife who could be his eternal partner"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
The author claims that "[s]ome sources say [Brigham] Young advised [Henry Jacobs] to find a wife who could be his eternal partner."
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader
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.- Full details: Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men."
}}
Response to claim: 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"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
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."Author's sources:
- Brigham Young, "A few words of Doctrine," Oct 8, 1861, LDS Archives.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
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."- Brigham Young 8 October 1861 discourse on plural marriage
- Full details: Wyatt, "Zina and Her Men."
Brigham Young's 8 October 1861 talk (edit)
Response to claim: 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"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
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…."Author's sources: *No source provided.
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources
Speaking in tongues is not a form of "mysticism." This characterization is inaccurate, alienating, and prejudicial.Presendia Buell (edit)
Response to claim: 79 - 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"
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
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]….."Author's sources: Presendia Buell (edit)
FAIR's Response
{{propaganda|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? The author disguises the fact that DNA evidence has proved that Oliver was not Joseph's son.
- Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages
- Gregory L. Smith, A review of Nauvoo Polygamy:...but we called it celestial marriage by George D. Smith. FARMS Review, Vol. 20, Issue 2. (Detailed book review)
Response to claim: 80 n. 63 - "There is no DNA connection" between Joseph Smith and Oliver Buell
The author(s) of Nauvoo Polygamy make(s) the following claim:
"….There is no DNA connection (Carrie A. Moore, “DNA tests rule out 2 as Smith descendants: scientific advances prove no genetic link,” 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)."
FAIR's Response
Fact checking results: This claim is false
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?- Children by Presendia Buell?
- Gregory L. Smith, A review of Nauvoo Polygamy:...but we called it celestial marriage by George D. Smith. FARMS Review, Vol. 20, Issue 2. (Detailed book review)
Presendia Buell (edit)
Notes
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Andrew F. Ehat, "Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question," (Master's Thesis, Brigham Young University, 1981), 40.
- ↑ Presenda Huntington Kimball, “Biographical Sketch,” 1881, MS 742, CHL, first copy page 2 and variant copy page 2. off-site
- ↑ Joseph F. Smith affidavit books, CHL 1:7. off-site
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ [citation needed]
- ↑ Bennett, History of the Saints, 40–41.
- ↑ Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957). Volume 5 link
- ↑ Smith, History of the Church, 5:18 (26 May 1842).
- ↑ Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 461.; see Times and Seasons 3/15 (15 June 1842): 830; Smith, History of the Church, 5:32.