![FairMormon Logo](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021_fair_logo_primary.png)
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.
(→450: mod) |
m (→top: Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}) |
||
(37 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | {{ | + | {{Main Page}} |
− | | | + | {{H1 |
− | | | + | |L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Nauvoo Polygamy/Chapter 7 |
− | | | + | |H=Response to claims made in "Chapter 7" |
− | | | + | |S= |
− | | | + | |L1= |
− | | | + | |T=[[../../|Nauvoo Polygamy: "... but we called it celestial marriage"]] |
− | + | |A=George D. Smith | |
+ | |<=[[../Chapter 6|Chapter 6]] | ||
+ | |>=[[../Chapter 8|Chapter 8]] | ||
}} | }} | ||
− | + | <onlyinclude> | |
− | {{ | + | {{H2 |
− | | | + | |L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Nauvoo Polygamy/Chapter 7 |
− | ==== | + | |H=Response to claims made in Nauvoo Polygamy, "Chapter 7" |
− | || | + | |S= |
− | + | |L1=Response to claim: 416 - "the 1846 temple sealings, which re-comemorated previously conducted plural marriages, were carefully noted in Nauvoo temple records" | |
− | | | + | |L2=Response to claim: 423 - Joseph Smith is claimed to have "appropriated church members' charitable donations for real estate speculation, buying low and selling high to those immigrants who could afford to pay" |
− | + | |L3=Response to claim: 429 - A friend of Nancy Rigdon, Francis had become concerned in 1842 over Smith's advances toward her" | |
− | *[[ | + | |L4=Response to claim: 435 - Dallin H. Oaks' assertation that the "abatement of newspapers publishing scandalous or provocative material" was not considered a violation of freedom of the press at the time" |
+ | |L5=Response to claim: 438–439 - William Law's claims about Joseph mismanaging or defrauding the Lawrence estate | ||
+ | |L6=Response to claim: 445 - William Clayton's "discussion of plural marriage was at once turned into a charge of having had 'unlawful intercourse with women'" | ||
+ | |L7=Response to claim: 446 - Andrew Jenson published about plural wives, only to have Wilford Woodruff complain about him having done so | ||
+ | |L8=Response to claim: 449 - Latter-day Saints "accepted as sufficient" that Joseph Smith's death was "due to an angry mob, without caring to know specifically what those Illinois neighbors had been angry about" | ||
+ | |L9=Response to claim: 450 - "One LDS educator in 1967 wrote about the 'causes' of conflict in Nauvoo…without mentioning plural marriage" | ||
+ | |L10=Response to claim: 450 n. 106 - The author cites the paper as "Causes of Non-Mormon Conflict" | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | </onlyinclude> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Response to claim: 416 - "the 1846 temple sealings, which re-comemorated previously conducted plural marriages, were carefully noted in Nauvoo temple records"== | ||
+ | {{IndexClaimItemShort | ||
+ | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | ||
+ | |claim={{AuthorQuote|"…the 1846 temple sealings, which re-comemorated previously conducted plural marriages, were carefully noted in Nauvoo temple records."}} | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{information|The Church has allowed these records to be seen by researchers and even published by Signature Books. <ref>Lisle G. Brown, ''Nauvoo Sealings, Adoptions, and Anointings : A Comprehensive Register of Persons Receiving LDS Temple Ordinances'' 1841-1846 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2006).</ref> This seems a strange course of action for an organization determined (as the author repeatedly insists) to "expurgating" the history of plural marriage. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | *[[Church history/Censorship and revision]] | ||
*[[../../Censorship]] | *[[../../Censorship]] | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 423 - Joseph Smith is claimed to have "appropriated church members' charitable donations for real estate speculation, buying low and selling high to those immigrants who could afford to pay"== |
− | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
− | | | + | |claim=In Nauvoo, Joseph is claimed to have "appropriated church members' charitable donations for real estate speculation, buying low and selling high to those immigrants who could afford to pay." |
− | + | }} | |
− | + | {{misinformation|Joseph had, in fact, signed a note for the land—thus going into debt himself. He sold land at variable prices, charging those who could afford more money so that he could give free or cheap land to the poor. This is not land speculation. | |
− | + | }} | |
+ | {{:Question: Did Joseph Smith engage in "land speculation" in Nauvoo?}} | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 429 - A friend of Nancy Rigdon, Francis had become concerned in 1842 over Smith's advances toward her"== |
− | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
− | | | + | |claim={{AuthorQuote|"A friend of Nancy Rigdon, Francis had become concerned in 1842 over Smith's advances toward her."}} |
− | + | }} | |
+ | {{misinformation|The author fails to tell us that Francis was, in fact, Nancy's boyfriend and her suitor. He also neglects to mention that Francis had contracted a venereal disease from a prostitute, had been seducing women under John C. Bennett's tutelage, and may have engaged in a homosexual relationship with Bennett. | ||
+ | }} | ||
*[[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: 435 - Dallin H. Oaks' assertation that the "abatement of newspapers publishing scandalous or provocative material" was not considered a violation of freedom of the press at the time"== |
− | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
− | || | + | |claim=The author claims that Dallin H. Oaks' assertation that the "abatement of newspapers publishing scandalous or provocative material" was not considered a violation of freedom of the press at the time draws "no distinction between the destruction of a newspaper without a trial and a libel charge being tried in the courts." |
− | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
− | + | #{{Zioncourts1|start=112-13, 390n13 (Citing Oaks)}} | |
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|The author's "reply" to Dallin Oaks is a ''[[Logical_fallacies#Non_sequitur|non sequitur]]''. Oaks (and Firmage and Mangrum) demonstrate at length that both Illinois and U.S. law had ample precedent in case law and practice for the abatement of the ''Expositor''. If the author wishes to dispute the legal scholarship marshaled by Oaks' 40 page review, it deserves more than a dismissive footnote, and he ought to interact with Oaks' article, not a brief summary in a secondary source. <ref>Dallin H. Oaks, "The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor," ''Utah Law Review'' 9 (1965): 862–903.</ref> | ||
+ | }} | ||
*[[../../Presentism#.22Freedom_of_the_press.22]] | *[[../../Presentism#.22Freedom_of_the_press.22]] | ||
*[[Nauvoo Expositor]] | *[[Nauvoo Expositor]] | ||
− | |||
− | |||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Expositor}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Expositor}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 438–439 - William Law's claims about Joseph mismanaging or defrauding the Lawrence estate== |
− | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
− | || | + | |claim=The author follows William Law's claims about Joseph mismanaging or defrauding the Lawrence estate. |
− | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
− | + | #Cook, ''William Law'', 120. | |
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|The author completely ignores the primary documents on this issue, and relies only on Law's hostile, and demonstrably false, account. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{:Question: Did Joseph Smith mismanage the estate of two orphans, Maria and Sarah Lawrence by marrying these sisters polygamously in order to use the marriage to enrich himself?}} | ||
*{{GDS-See also|3|196}} | *{{GDS-See also|3|196}} | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | ====442==== | + | <!-- ====442==== |
− | || | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
− | + | |claim={{AuthorQuote|"Instead of evaluating a difficult past in order not to repeat it, the church leadership tried to separate its troubles from their apparent causes."}} | |
+ | }} | ||
*[[../../Use_of_sources#.22separate_its_troubles_from_their_apparent_causes.22]] | *[[../../Use_of_sources#.22separate_its_troubles_from_their_apparent_causes.22]] | ||
− | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | + | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} --> |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 445 - William Clayton's "discussion of plural marriage was at once turned into a charge of having had 'unlawful intercourse with women'"== |
− | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
− | | | + | |claim=William Clayton's "discussion of plural marriage was at once turned into a charge of having had 'unlawful intercourse with women.'" |
− | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
− | + | #Smith, ''Intimate Chronicle'', xlix-l. | |
− | *[[William Clayton | + | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:William Clayton}} |
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|The author told us earlier only that in England Clayton "was personally suspected of ‘having had unlawful intercourse with women.’” He said nothing about this being due only to Clayton's discussion of the matter. Even now, though, the author still does not tell us that the charge came from an “apostate Mormon,” whom Clayton claimed had maliciously distorted his words. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | *[[Polygamy/William Clayton]] | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 446 - Andrew Jenson published about plural wives, only to have Wilford Woodruff complain about him having done so== |
− | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
− | || | + | |claim=The author mentions that Andrew Jenson published about plural wives, only to have Wilford Woodruff complain about him having done so. The author has continuously argued that the Church has striven to hide or suppress knowledge of polygamy. |
− | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
− | + | #{{CriticalWork:Van Wagoner:Mormon Polygamy|pages=135}} | |
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|The author does not tell us that the reason Woodruff was worried was because at the time (1887) federal marshals were pursuing and jailing polygamists and their wives who refused to testify. Woodruff was trying to keep members out of jail, not trying to suppress polygamy. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{:Question: Did Wilford Woodruff criticize assistant Church Historian Andrew Jenson's decision to publish the names of those who were married to Joseph Smith because he wanted to hide the fact that Joseph was married to other women?}} | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | ====447==== | + | <!-- ====447==== |
− | || | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
− | | | + | |claim=Joseph F. Smith wrote to Orson Pratt that a “few years ago [I] tried to get affidavits regarding Joseph Smith and ‘celestial marriage.’ . . . I was astonished at the scarcity of evidence. I might say almost total absence of direct evidence upon the subject as connected with the prophet Joseph himself.” |
+ | |authorsources=<br> | ||
+ | #Joseph F. Smith to Orson Pratt Sr., 19 July 1875, Joseph F. Smith Letterbooks, Ms d 1325, Joseph F. Smith Collection, Church History Library and Archives. | ||
+ | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}} | ||
+ | }} | ||
*If the church had scant evidence in 1875, what evidence did those compiling the ''History of the Church'' more than twenty years earlier have? This speaks directly to Smith's complaints about the ''History of the Church''. | *If the church had scant evidence in 1875, what evidence did those compiling the ''History of the Church'' more than twenty years earlier have? This speaks directly to Smith's complaints about the ''History of the Church''. | ||
− | *[[ | + | *[[Church history/Censorship and revision]] |
− | *[[../../Censorship]] | + | *[[../../Censorship]] --> |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 449 - Latter-day Saints "accepted as sufficient" that Joseph Smith's death was "due to an angry mob, without caring to know specifically what those Illinois neighbors had been angry about"== |
− | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort | |
− | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
− | || | + | |claim=The author implies that Latter-day Saints "accepted as sufficient" that Joseph Smith's death was "due to an angry mob, without caring to know specifically what those Illinois neighbors had been angry about." |
− | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
− | + | #The author lists these works but does not give page numbers. | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
#Brigham H. Roberts, ''A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints'' (Provo, UT: BYU Press, 1965). | #Brigham H. Roberts, ''A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints'' (Provo, UT: BYU Press, 1965). | ||
#Joseph Fielding Smith, ''Essentials in Church History: A History of the Church from the Birth of Joseph Smith to the Present Time (1922), with Introductory Chapters on the Antiquity of the Gospel and The “Falling Away”'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1922). | #Joseph Fielding Smith, ''Essentials in Church History: A History of the Church from the Birth of Joseph Smith to the Present Time (1922), with Introductory Chapters on the Antiquity of the Gospel and The “Falling Away”'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1922). | ||
Line 144: | Line 143: | ||
#Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, ''The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-Day Saints'', 2nd ed. (New York: Knopf, 1992). | #Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, ''The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-Day Saints'', 2nd ed. (New York: Knopf, 1992). | ||
{{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}} | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}} | ||
− | |- | + | }} |
− | + | {{misinformation|{{HistoricalError}} The author cites five works for this claim. All five, contrary to his claim, discuss the role of plural marriage in Joseph Smith's martyrdom, as well as other facts. | |
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{:Question: Do Mormon histories have a long history of omitting mention of plural marriage as a cause for the Saints' troubles in Illinois?}} | ||
+ | *[[../../Censorship]] | ||
+ | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 450 - "One LDS educator in 1967 wrote about the 'causes' of conflict in Nauvoo…without mentioning plural marriage"== |
− | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
− | | | + | |claim=The author notes that "[o]ne LDS educator in 1967 wrote about the 'causes' of conflict in Nauvoo…without mentioning plural marriage." |
− | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
− | *[[ | + | #Kenneth W. Godfrey, “Causes of [Mormon ''sic''] Non-Mormon Conflict in Hancock County, Illinois, 1839–1846” (PhD diss., Brigham Young University, 1967), chap 7. |
+ | {{CriticalWorks:Smith:Nauvoo_Polygamy:See_also:Censorship}} | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{misinformation|Contrary to the author's claim, Godfrey's cited chapter is entitled "plural marriage," and he discusses it at length there and in his abstract and conclusion. | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | *[[Church history/Censorship and revision/LDS histories over many years omit plural marriage|LDS histories over many years omit plural marriage#Godfrey]] | ||
*[[../../Censorship]] | *[[../../Censorship]] | ||
*{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | *{{GLS-Nauvoo Polygamy-FARMS}} | ||
− | + | *{{AuthorPublisherResponse}} The publisher acknowledged that the author "might have been more precise" in his statement, and indicated that the author meant that Latter-day Saints "have yet to acknowledge" that polygamy was a "main cause" leading to Joseph Smith's death. {{link|url=http://www.signaturebooks.com/pluralmarriage.htm?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234200952&sr=1-1}} | |
− | * | ||
− | {{ | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==Response to claim: 450 n. 106 - The author cites the paper as "Causes of Non-Mormon Conflict"== |
− | | | + | {{IndexClaimItemShort |
− | + | |title=Nauvoo Polygamy | |
− | | | + | |claim=The author cites the paper as "Causes of Non-Mormon Conflict…." |
− | + | |authorsources=<br> | |
− | + | #{{CitationError}} Correct title is: "Causes of '''Mormon''' Non-Mormon Conflict…" {{ea}} | |
− | + | }} | |
− | + | {{misinformation}} | |
− | {{ | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | + | {{endnotes sources}} | |
− | {{ |
Chapter 6 | A FAIR Analysis of: Nauvoo Polygamy: "... but we called it celestial marriage", a work by author: George D. Smith
|
Chapter 8 |
Jump to details:
Author's quote: "…the 1846 temple sealings, which re-comemorated previously conducted plural marriages, were carefully noted in Nauvoo temple records."
Censorship of Church History (edit)
In Nauvoo, Joseph is claimed to have "appropriated church members' charitable donations for real estate speculation, buying low and selling high to those immigrants who could afford to pay."
<onlyinclude>
Author's quote: "A friend of Nancy Rigdon, Francis had become concerned in 1842 over Smith's advances toward her."
John C. Bennett (edit)
The author claims that Dallin H. Oaks' assertation that the "abatement of newspapers publishing scandalous or provocative material" was not considered a violation of freedom of the press at the time draws "no distinction between the destruction of a newspaper without a trial and a libel charge being tried in the courts."Author's sources:
- Edwin Brown Firmage and Richard Collin Mangrum, Zion in the Courts : a Legal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830–1900 (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988), 112-13, 390n13 (Citing Oaks). ISBN 0252069803.
Nauvoo Expositor (edit)
The author follows William Law's claims about Joseph mismanaging or defrauding the Lawrence estate.Author's sources:
- Cook, William Law, 120.
It is claimed that Joseph Smith mismanaged the estate of two orphans, Maria and Sarah Lawrence. Joseph also married these sisters polygamously, and it is suggested that he also used the marriage to enrich himself. [3]
The account presented is given by a bitter apostate—offered nearly forty-three years after the fact—exclusive precedence over contemporary court documents, which demonstrate that the courts found that Joseph's conduct had been appropriate.
G.D. Smith reports that William Law charged Joseph with
fiduciary neglect of his teenage responsibility, Maria Lawrence. Reviewing his own actions forty years later, Law concluded that Joseph was not the only one who had taken advantage of a defenseless girl. Emma, he believed, was equally complicit. . . . With Hyrum Smith’s death, William Law, the other bondsman for the Lawrences, felt acutely the responsibility he bore, ultimately reimbursing Joseph’s $3,000 worth of expenses charged to the estate—the amount Joseph had claimed as the value of room and board (pp. 438–39).
By accepting Law’s account, G. D. Smith commits many of the same errors present in Todd Compton’s In Sacred Loneliness. However, even before the publication of Compton’s book, Gordon A. Madsen had presented data showing the falsity of Law’s charges. Compton has the excuse that Madsen’s material was unpublished when his book went to press and only available from a presentation made at the Mormon History Association in 1996. More than a decade later, G. D. Smith makes the same errors, though with no hint of the exculpatory evidence available from the primary documents. [4] He even cites Madsen’s materials but tells the reader nothing about their contents. [5]
G. D. Smith has apparently not paid attention to what the FARMS Review reported on this topic either, since
most of what Law said about the estate itself was incorrect. . . . Madsen’s paper quoted the will, under which Maria and Sarah would share equal parts of the estate with several siblings, but the distribution was not due during the life of their widowed mother, who was entitled to her share of annual interest on the undivided assets. . . . Between 1841 and early 1844, Joseph Smith charged nothing for boarding Maria and Sarah, nor did he bill the estate for management fees. Furthermore, in mid-1843, the probate court approved his accounts, including annual interest payments to the widow, as required by the will. . . . Gordon Madsen’s overall point was that the Prophet met his legal responsibilities in being entrusted with the Lawrence assets. There is no hint of fraud. [6]
But rather than respond to this material or describe Madsen’s conclusions, G. D. Smith merely follows the hostile William Law. Madsen further informed me that there was never any "cash" in the estate delivered to Joseph, and certainly not the "$8,000.00 in English gold" that Law would later claim. [7]
The bulk of the estate was in promissory notes owed by fellow Canadians to the Lawrences. Law was well aware of this since he and his brother Wilson were hired by Joseph to collect some of these debts. Joseph’s accounts provided the probate court list payment to "W. & W. Law" in such cases. At one point, Joseph "sent William Clayton to Wilson Law to find out why he refused paying his note, when he brought in some claims as a set-off which Clayton knew were paid, leaving me no remedy but the glorious uncertainty of the law." [8] It is not clear whether this was Law’s own note or one owed to the Lawrences. Certainly the estate was never liquid, and it is likely that not all of the notes had been collected before Joseph’s death. [9]
To portray Joseph as "us[ing] celestial marriage as a means to access . . . [a] fortune" (p. 439) is to ignore virtually all the primary sources.
Notes
William Clayton's "discussion of plural marriage was at once turned into a charge of having had 'unlawful intercourse with women.'"Author's sources:
- Smith, Intimate Chronicle, xlix-l.
William Clayton (edit)
See also ch. 7: 445
The author mentions that Andrew Jenson published about plural wives, only to have Wilford Woodruff complain about him having done so. The author has continuously argued that the Church has striven to hide or suppress knowledge of polygamy.Author's sources:
- Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 135.
Polygamy or plural marriage was the Church's most controversial teaching and practice, and it remains the most controversial part of its history today.
Critics who hope to portray the Church as hiding its history misrepresent several aspects of the Church's history writing to make it appear as if the Church hopes to hide its polygamist past.
For example, some critics claim that the Church does not admit to polygamy's role in the vicious persecution suffered by the Saints in Illinois, including the murder of Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum.
"Mormons accepted as sufficient the explanation that Joseph Smith’s death was due to an angry mob, without caring to know specifically what those Illinois neighbors had been angry about,” writes one critical author, citing five works from 1888 to 1979 (pp. 5, 449–50, n. 105). These references provide a textbook example of footnotes that do not support one’s claims. [1]
The author's claim that these six histories omit plural marriage as a cause for difficulties in Nauvoo is clearly false.[2]
Contrary to G.D. Smith’s claim about Roberts’s Comprehensive History, Roberts described plural marriage, concluding, “Bearing this situation in mind, I am sure the reader will better appreciate the many complications which follow in this Nauvoo period of our history.”[3] Roberts’s discussion of the Expositor reminds the reader of “the introduction of the practice of the new marriage system of the church, permitting under special conditions a plurality of wives,” and notes that the dissident paper had “charged the Prophet with exercising illegal authority, both in ecclesiastical and civil affairs; with the introduction of the plural wife system, and other supposed doctrinal heresies; with gross immoralities; and malfeasance in the administration of the affairs of the church.”
Roberts did not deny that errors by the Saints played a role:
This bitterness had been created in the public mind in large part through the misrepresentations that had been made of the purposes and designs of the church leaders; in part by the unwisdom of church members, for whom no claim is made of impeccability, either in word or action; nor is absolute inerrancy in judgment and policy claimed for even the leaders of the church.[4]
For his claim that plural marriage was ignored as a cause of Joseph’s death, G.D. Smith also cites Joseph Fielding Smith’s Essentials of Church History. Yet Joseph Fielding Smith both admits the introduction of plural marriage by Joseph Smith and writes that the Prophet was arrested on a charge of polygamy.[5]
G.D. Smith’s appeal to William E. Berrett’s The Restored Church for the suppression thesis is likewise unpersuasive. In a section titled “Causes of the Conflict in Illinois,” Berrett argues that one of the new doctrines that set the Saints apart
was especially responsible for bringing persecution upon the Church. That was the doctrine of plural marriage by divine sanction. . . . In 1840, the doctrine was taught to a few leading brethren who, with the Prophet, secretly married additional wives in the following year. This secrecy could not be long kept, yet the doctrine was not openly discussed. This state of affairs gave rise to serious slander outside the Church. . . . He was convinced that the practice of the doctrine would bring bitter persecution upon the Church and eventually cause him to lose his life. . . . The Prophet was aware that the social order he contemplated would arouse bitter opposition in Illinois. . . . And this not because the Mormons were hard to get along with, or because non-Mormons were wicked, but because the teachings of the Church and the existing social orders were so directly in conflict. (italics in original)[6]
That Berrett’s work was originally published by the church’s Educational Department in 1937 (a fact not noted in G.D. Smith’s footnote) is significant—this is not an effort to hide anything.
G.D. Smith’s footnote also suggests that Orson F. Whitney’s biography of Heber C. Kimball supports his claim. Whitney’s biography tells the well-known story of Joseph requesting Vilate Kimball as his wife and introduces the martyrdom by declaring that “without doubt, the revelation of the great principle of plural marriage was a prime cause of the troubles which now arose, culminating in the Prophet’s martyrdom and the exodus of the Church into the wilderness.”<ref<{{Book:Whitney:Life of Heber C. Kimball|pages=323–29, (emphasis added)</ref>
Finally, Smith appeals to Leonard Arrington and Davis Bitton’s The Mormon Experience. These authors again note the contribution of polygamy that G.D. Smith insists Mormon histories ignore. The following language contradicts his thesis: “An additional element [that] contributed to the Mormons’ problems in Illinois—as if more were required—were the rumors of plural marriage that began to circulate in Nauvoo,” and “paradoxically, continuing revelation . . . contributed to the divisions of Nauvoo because of the development during this period of certain unusual doctrines, . . . especially plural marriage.” “From the first, polygamy was an explosive issue,” according to Arrington and Bitton. “A scandal to non-Mormon neighbors, it also caused a number of defections within the Mormon camp even before the death of Joseph Smith. . . . By the fall of 1843 the subject of plurality was on every tongue in the city.” Arrington and Bitton also point out that the Expositor “contained inflammatory allegations about the sex lives of Mormon leaders and members.”[7]
G.D. Smith even goes so far as to claim that “one LDS Educator in 1967 wrote about the ‘causes’ of conflict in Nauvoo and mentioned Joseph’s death as a watershed moment . . . without mentioning plural marriage.” He cites the seventh chapter of Kenneth W. Godfrey’s 1967 PhD dissertation for this claim.[8] This chapter is actually entitled “Plural Marriage”—a strange title to use if not about plural marriage!
“As early as 1836,” wrote Godfrey, the “Saints were accused of believing in plural marriage. But it was not until the Nauvoo period . . . that this doctrine and practice became a major source of non-Mormon resentment.”[8]:91 Godfrey discusses the first hints of plural marriage in 1831, the Fanny Alger marriage, and Oliver Cowdery’s angry reaction.
When he treats the Nauvoo period, Godfrey notes that “by 1841 or 1842 plural marriage was secretly being practiced with increased frequency.” Godfrey even follows, without comment, Brodie’s exaggerated estimate of forty-nine wives for Joseph.[8]:95 He also details the secrecy surrounding plural marriage and the deception used to maintain it:
Possibly Joseph Smith, partly because of Gentile opposition, kept the doctrine as secret as possible. . . . It was kept so secret that many members of the Church denied that it was even taught. . . . Even though some members of the Church denied the existence of plural marriage, there are a number of documents to support the view that, among the faithful, many such marriages were being performed.[8]:97-98
Contrary to G.D. Smith’s claim that polygamy’s impact was ignored by Latter-day Saint historians, Godfrey wrote that “gradually rumors became more and more persistent regarding the Mormon matrimonial system,” adding that one author “argues that ‘spiritual wifery was one of the leading causes of the Mormon-Gentile trouble in Hancock County.’”[8]:99-100 John C. Bennett and Oliver Olney had published about polygamy, and Godfrey argues that “such extensive publicity appears to have aroused the public against Mormonism and its marriage system.”[8]:103 Bennett’s claims about a Cyprian order of women “available to any Mormon who desired her . . . was . . . not true but nevertheless it was somewhat effective in arousing the public mind against Mormonism.”[8]:108
Godfrey also quotes extensively from the 25 April 1844 edition of the Warsaw Signal to demonstrate the animus in which polygamy was held.[8]:92n930 As his narrative approaches Joseph’s death, Godfrey argues that “one of the reasons for the publication of the Nauvoo Expositor was to publicly proclaim opposition to the plurality of wives doctrine as taught by the Prophet.”[8]:106-107
Contrary to what G.D. Smith asserts, Godfrey dealt with polygamy as a cause of the hostilities towards the Saints in Nauvoo. His abstract and conclusion summarize his views:
Peculiar religious beliefs held by Latter-day Saints caused some of the difficulties they experienced in Illinois. Such doctrines as plural marriage . . . led to further hostility. . . . Perhaps in retrospect both Mormons and non-Mormons were to blame for the disharmony. . . . The Mormons . . . engaged in a marriage system held by Gentiles to be adulterous. . . . Since polygamy was unannounced yet practiced, credance [sic] was given to the claims of former Mormons which cast even more doubt upon the Prophet’s character. It become [sic] almost impossible to overstress the role exscinded Mormons played in arousing people against leaders of the Church.[8]:2-3, 215
The claim that an “LDS educator” discussed the Illinois troubles “without even mentioning plural marriage” is thus likewise false. All of these claims are disproven by the references that are offered to support them.
Not content with misrepresenting modern LDS authors, critics also claim that Wilford Woodruff sought to disguise the Church's polygamous history.
They point to Wilford Woodruff's criticism of assistant Church Historian Andrew Jenson's decision to publish the names of those who were married to Joseph Smith. Woodruff did this, we are told, because he wanted to hide the fact that Joseph was married to other women.
Here again, the critics are not being fair. Jenson’s material, coming when it did, could have put members in danger. But G.D. Smith makes it appear that Woodruff was trying to hide the practice of plural marriage in 1887. [9]
G.D. Smith writes that Jenson's article “appeared on the down-side slope of the historical peak in polygamy . . . [and] Woodruff complained to Jenson.” G.D. Smith quotes Woodruff to the effect that “we do not think it a wise step to give these names to the world at the present time in the manner in which you have done. . . . Advantage may be taken of their publication and in some instances, to the injury, perhaps, of families or relatives of those whose names are mentioned” (p. 447).[10]
What is not explained or acknowledged is that Woodruff’s paramount concern was not to hide history or deny plural marriage. (The Manifesto was three years in the future: polygamy was hardly a secret! The United States government knew very well that the Saints practiced polygamy, knew that they taught that Joseph had practiced it, and was determined to stamp it out. Woodruff can hardly be disguising these facts.
Rather, Woodruff likely feared the very real risk of spies and government agents using the information to prosecute members of the church. At this period, women were jailed for refusing to testify against husbands; hundreds of men were in hiding or in prison. “Words are inadequate to convey the feelings of those times—the hurts to individuals and families, to the church. . . . Families were torn apart, left to provide as best they could.”[11]
Critical sources |
|
This well-worn tactic has not stopped even today.
Some even insisted that the Church manual, The Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, attempted to "hide history" by portraying Brigham Young (a well-known polygamist) as having only one wife.
This is a strange claim, since it is fairly common knowledge, both inside and outside of the Church, that Brigham was a polygamist. Many US history textbooks used in public high schools mention Brigham's polygamy, for example, and many news stories and other mentions of the Church in modern media will mention polygamy, so it would seem odd (and a bit futile) for the Church to attempt to rewrite this aspect of its history by means of a single lesson in a single manual.
A review of the manual itself reveals that it does not claim Brigham Young "only has one wife," nor does it "paint [him] as a monogamist." In fact, it primarily concentrates on Brigham's teachings, and only briefly touches on his personal life.
Brief biographical information on Brigham appears in a one-page "Historical Summary." [12] Chapter 1, "The Ministry of Brigham Young," also has some biographical data, although it almost exclusively focuses on his conversion, missionary experiences, calling to the Quorum of the Twelve, and colonization and leadership of Utah. The Historical Summary and Chapter 1 both mention his marriage to and the death of his first wife, Miriam Works,[13] and his subsequent remarriage to Mary Ann Angel.[14] Other than that, they do not discuss his marriage relationships or family life.
In Chapter 23, "Understanding the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage," two instances of the term "wives" were modified to "[wife]," with brackets included to notify the reader of the editorial change. Since the statements did not refer to Brigham's own wives, but were part of his counsel to men regarding their marriages, the edited reading is easier for today's Latter-day Saints, none of whom are married to more than one wife.
The next manual in the instructional series—Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith—includes this clarifying statement in the "Historical Summary" of President Smith's life:
This book is not a history, but rather a compilation of gospel principles as taught by President Joseph F. Smith. However, in order to put the teachings in a historical framework, the following list is provided to summarize some of the milestones in his life that have most immediate relationship to his teachings. This summary omits some important events in his personal life, including his marriages (plural marriage was being practiced in the Church at that time) and the births and deaths of his children, to whom he was devoted.[15]
This explanation, which is almost certainly directed at detractors of the Brigham Young manual, clarifies that the purpose of the series is not biographical or historical, but didactic. Other Church publications that are historical discuss the subject of plural marriage and its practice among the Latter-day Saints in the nineteenth century.[16]
Note also that a careful reading of the quotations as shown in the Brigham Young manual or in their original sources (which are clearly referenced in the manual) will show that Brigham is not actually referring to his own wives and family in these quotes but to the families of the people he was addressing, so the suggestion that this quote somehow recasts Brigham as a monogamist is somewhat puzzling. The fact that the author of the letter mentions changing "wives" to "wife" in the Brigham Young manual without sharing the actual quote, which provides this additional explanatory context, suggests that this criticism is borrowed from elsewhere, since many sectarian critics of the church picked up on this story when the manual first came out and characterized it in similar terms and without the proper context, as the author has done here. A FairMormon publication by Mike Parker, "The Church’s Portrayal of Brigham Young," explains further:
In Chapter 23, “Understanding the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage,” two instances of the term “wives” were modified to “[wife],” with brackets included to notify the reader of the editorial change. Since the statements did not refer to Brigham’s own wives, but were part of his counsel to men regarding their marriages, the edited reading is easier for today’s Latter-day Saints, none of whom are married to more than one wife.
The next manual in the instructional series–Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith–includes this clarifying statement in the “Historical Summary” of President Smith’s life:
This book is not a history, but rather a compilation of gospel principles as taught by President Joseph F. Smith. However, in order to put the teachings in a historical framework, the following list is provided to summarize some of the milestones in his life that have most immediate relationship to his teachings. This summary omits some important events in his personal life, including his marriages (plural marriage was being practiced in the Church at that time) and the births and deaths of his children, to whom he was devoted.10
This explanation, which is almost certainly directed at detractors of the Brigham Young manual, clarifies that the purpose of the series is not biographical or historical, but didactical. Other Church publications that are historical discuss the subject of plural marriage and its practice among the Latter-day Saints in the nineteenth century.11
The Brigham Young manual and the manuals that followed it include selected teachings on selected subjects that have application to subjects of concern to today's Latter-day Saints. They do not teach history, but how to live the gospel of Jesus Christ. Despite the complaints of its detractors, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not engaged in a cover up, nor is it attempting to hide an "embarrassing past."
Furthermore, the use of square brackets is an accepted editorial convention when a later author wants to use an earlier author's words but change them slightly to fit a different purpose without changing the overall message of the quote. In the case of the quote in question, Brigham Young is giving counsel to a group of men on how they can be good leaders in their families, which for many of them at the time would have included polygamous marriages. In the modern church, members would only have one spouse, yet the counsel on how to be good leaders of families is still relevant, though it would require an editorial change (clearly marked in square brackets) to change "wives" to "wife".
Critical sources |
|
Notes
The author implies that Latter-day Saints "accepted as sufficient" that Joseph Smith's death was "due to an angry mob, without caring to know specifically what those Illinois neighbors had been angry about."Author's sources:
- The author lists these works but does not give page numbers.
- Brigham H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Provo, UT: BYU Press, 1965).
- Joseph Fielding Smith, Essentials in Church History: A History of the Church from the Birth of Joseph Smith to the Present Time (1922), with Introductory Chapters on the Antiquity of the Gospel and The “Falling Away” (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1922).
- William E. Berrett, The Restored Church: A Brief History of the Origin, Growth and Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Salt Lake City: Department of Education of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Deseret Book, 1958).
- Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, An Apostle; The Father and Founder of the British Mission (Salt Lake City: Kimball family, 1888).
- Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-Day Saints, 2nd ed. (New York: Knopf, 1992).
Censorship of Church History (edit)
Polygamy or plural marriage was the Church's most controversial teaching and practice, and it remains the most controversial part of its history today.
Critics who hope to portray the Church as hiding its history misrepresent several aspects of the Church's history writing to make it appear as if the Church hopes to hide its polygamist past.
For example, some critics claim that the Church does not admit to polygamy's role in the vicious persecution suffered by the Saints in Illinois, including the murder of Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum.
"Mormons accepted as sufficient the explanation that Joseph Smith’s death was due to an angry mob, without caring to know specifically what those Illinois neighbors had been angry about,” writes one critical author, citing five works from 1888 to 1979 (pp. 5, 449–50, n. 105). These references provide a textbook example of footnotes that do not support one’s claims. [1]
The author's claim that these six histories omit plural marriage as a cause for difficulties in Nauvoo is clearly false.[2]
Contrary to G.D. Smith’s claim about Roberts’s Comprehensive History, Roberts described plural marriage, concluding, “Bearing this situation in mind, I am sure the reader will better appreciate the many complications which follow in this Nauvoo period of our history.”[3] Roberts’s discussion of the Expositor reminds the reader of “the introduction of the practice of the new marriage system of the church, permitting under special conditions a plurality of wives,” and notes that the dissident paper had “charged the Prophet with exercising illegal authority, both in ecclesiastical and civil affairs; with the introduction of the plural wife system, and other supposed doctrinal heresies; with gross immoralities; and malfeasance in the administration of the affairs of the church.”
Roberts did not deny that errors by the Saints played a role:
This bitterness had been created in the public mind in large part through the misrepresentations that had been made of the purposes and designs of the church leaders; in part by the unwisdom of church members, for whom no claim is made of impeccability, either in word or action; nor is absolute inerrancy in judgment and policy claimed for even the leaders of the church.[4]
For his claim that plural marriage was ignored as a cause of Joseph’s death, G.D. Smith also cites Joseph Fielding Smith’s Essentials of Church History. Yet Joseph Fielding Smith both admits the introduction of plural marriage by Joseph Smith and writes that the Prophet was arrested on a charge of polygamy.[5]
G.D. Smith’s appeal to William E. Berrett’s The Restored Church for the suppression thesis is likewise unpersuasive. In a section titled “Causes of the Conflict in Illinois,” Berrett argues that one of the new doctrines that set the Saints apart
was especially responsible for bringing persecution upon the Church. That was the doctrine of plural marriage by divine sanction. . . . In 1840, the doctrine was taught to a few leading brethren who, with the Prophet, secretly married additional wives in the following year. This secrecy could not be long kept, yet the doctrine was not openly discussed. This state of affairs gave rise to serious slander outside the Church. . . . He was convinced that the practice of the doctrine would bring bitter persecution upon the Church and eventually cause him to lose his life. . . . The Prophet was aware that the social order he contemplated would arouse bitter opposition in Illinois. . . . And this not because the Mormons were hard to get along with, or because non-Mormons were wicked, but because the teachings of the Church and the existing social orders were so directly in conflict. (italics in original)[6]
That Berrett’s work was originally published by the church’s Educational Department in 1937 (a fact not noted in G.D. Smith’s footnote) is significant—this is not an effort to hide anything.
G.D. Smith’s footnote also suggests that Orson F. Whitney’s biography of Heber C. Kimball supports his claim. Whitney’s biography tells the well-known story of Joseph requesting Vilate Kimball as his wife and introduces the martyrdom by declaring that “without doubt, the revelation of the great principle of plural marriage was a prime cause of the troubles which now arose, culminating in the Prophet’s martyrdom and the exodus of the Church into the wilderness.”<ref<{{Book:Whitney:Life of Heber C. Kimball|pages=323–29, (emphasis added)</ref>
Finally, Smith appeals to Leonard Arrington and Davis Bitton’s The Mormon Experience. These authors again note the contribution of polygamy that G.D. Smith insists Mormon histories ignore. The following language contradicts his thesis: “An additional element [that] contributed to the Mormons’ problems in Illinois—as if more were required—were the rumors of plural marriage that began to circulate in Nauvoo,” and “paradoxically, continuing revelation . . . contributed to the divisions of Nauvoo because of the development during this period of certain unusual doctrines, . . . especially plural marriage.” “From the first, polygamy was an explosive issue,” according to Arrington and Bitton. “A scandal to non-Mormon neighbors, it also caused a number of defections within the Mormon camp even before the death of Joseph Smith. . . . By the fall of 1843 the subject of plurality was on every tongue in the city.” Arrington and Bitton also point out that the Expositor “contained inflammatory allegations about the sex lives of Mormon leaders and members.”[7]
G.D. Smith even goes so far as to claim that “one LDS Educator in 1967 wrote about the ‘causes’ of conflict in Nauvoo and mentioned Joseph’s death as a watershed moment . . . without mentioning plural marriage.” He cites the seventh chapter of Kenneth W. Godfrey’s 1967 PhD dissertation for this claim.[8] This chapter is actually entitled “Plural Marriage”—a strange title to use if not about plural marriage!
“As early as 1836,” wrote Godfrey, the “Saints were accused of believing in plural marriage. But it was not until the Nauvoo period . . . that this doctrine and practice became a major source of non-Mormon resentment.”[8]:91 Godfrey discusses the first hints of plural marriage in 1831, the Fanny Alger marriage, and Oliver Cowdery’s angry reaction.
When he treats the Nauvoo period, Godfrey notes that “by 1841 or 1842 plural marriage was secretly being practiced with increased frequency.” Godfrey even follows, without comment, Brodie’s exaggerated estimate of forty-nine wives for Joseph.[8]:95 He also details the secrecy surrounding plural marriage and the deception used to maintain it:
Possibly Joseph Smith, partly because of Gentile opposition, kept the doctrine as secret as possible. . . . It was kept so secret that many members of the Church denied that it was even taught. . . . Even though some members of the Church denied the existence of plural marriage, there are a number of documents to support the view that, among the faithful, many such marriages were being performed.[8]:97-98
Contrary to G.D. Smith’s claim that polygamy’s impact was ignored by Latter-day Saint historians, Godfrey wrote that “gradually rumors became more and more persistent regarding the Mormon matrimonial system,” adding that one author “argues that ‘spiritual wifery was one of the leading causes of the Mormon-Gentile trouble in Hancock County.’”[8]:99-100 John C. Bennett and Oliver Olney had published about polygamy, and Godfrey argues that “such extensive publicity appears to have aroused the public against Mormonism and its marriage system.”[8]:103 Bennett’s claims about a Cyprian order of women “available to any Mormon who desired her . . . was . . . not true but nevertheless it was somewhat effective in arousing the public mind against Mormonism.”[8]:108
Godfrey also quotes extensively from the 25 April 1844 edition of the Warsaw Signal to demonstrate the animus in which polygamy was held.[8]:92n930 As his narrative approaches Joseph’s death, Godfrey argues that “one of the reasons for the publication of the Nauvoo Expositor was to publicly proclaim opposition to the plurality of wives doctrine as taught by the Prophet.”[8]:106-107
Contrary to what G.D. Smith asserts, Godfrey dealt with polygamy as a cause of the hostilities towards the Saints in Nauvoo. His abstract and conclusion summarize his views:
Peculiar religious beliefs held by Latter-day Saints caused some of the difficulties they experienced in Illinois. Such doctrines as plural marriage . . . led to further hostility. . . . Perhaps in retrospect both Mormons and non-Mormons were to blame for the disharmony. . . . The Mormons . . . engaged in a marriage system held by Gentiles to be adulterous. . . . Since polygamy was unannounced yet practiced, credance [sic] was given to the claims of former Mormons which cast even more doubt upon the Prophet’s character. It become [sic] almost impossible to overstress the role exscinded Mormons played in arousing people against leaders of the Church.[8]:2-3, 215
The claim that an “LDS educator” discussed the Illinois troubles “without even mentioning plural marriage” is thus likewise false. All of these claims are disproven by the references that are offered to support them.
Not content with misrepresenting modern LDS authors, critics also claim that Wilford Woodruff sought to disguise the Church's polygamous history.
They point to Wilford Woodruff's criticism of assistant Church Historian Andrew Jenson's decision to publish the names of those who were married to Joseph Smith. Woodruff did this, we are told, because he wanted to hide the fact that Joseph was married to other women.
Here again, the critics are not being fair. Jenson’s material, coming when it did, could have put members in danger. But G.D. Smith makes it appear that Woodruff was trying to hide the practice of plural marriage in 1887. [9]
G.D. Smith writes that Jenson's article “appeared on the down-side slope of the historical peak in polygamy . . . [and] Woodruff complained to Jenson.” G.D. Smith quotes Woodruff to the effect that “we do not think it a wise step to give these names to the world at the present time in the manner in which you have done. . . . Advantage may be taken of their publication and in some instances, to the injury, perhaps, of families or relatives of those whose names are mentioned” (p. 447).[10]
What is not explained or acknowledged is that Woodruff’s paramount concern was not to hide history or deny plural marriage. (The Manifesto was three years in the future: polygamy was hardly a secret! The United States government knew very well that the Saints practiced polygamy, knew that they taught that Joseph had practiced it, and was determined to stamp it out. Woodruff can hardly be disguising these facts.
Rather, Woodruff likely feared the very real risk of spies and government agents using the information to prosecute members of the church. At this period, women were jailed for refusing to testify against husbands; hundreds of men were in hiding or in prison. “Words are inadequate to convey the feelings of those times—the hurts to individuals and families, to the church. . . . Families were torn apart, left to provide as best they could.”[11]
Critical sources |
|
This well-worn tactic has not stopped even today.
Some even insisted that the Church manual, The Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, attempted to "hide history" by portraying Brigham Young (a well-known polygamist) as having only one wife.
This is a strange claim, since it is fairly common knowledge, both inside and outside of the Church, that Brigham was a polygamist. Many US history textbooks used in public high schools mention Brigham's polygamy, for example, and many news stories and other mentions of the Church in modern media will mention polygamy, so it would seem odd (and a bit futile) for the Church to attempt to rewrite this aspect of its history by means of a single lesson in a single manual.
A review of the manual itself reveals that it does not claim Brigham Young "only has one wife," nor does it "paint [him] as a monogamist." In fact, it primarily concentrates on Brigham's teachings, and only briefly touches on his personal life.
Brief biographical information on Brigham appears in a one-page "Historical Summary." [12] Chapter 1, "The Ministry of Brigham Young," also has some biographical data, although it almost exclusively focuses on his conversion, missionary experiences, calling to the Quorum of the Twelve, and colonization and leadership of Utah. The Historical Summary and Chapter 1 both mention his marriage to and the death of his first wife, Miriam Works,[13] and his subsequent remarriage to Mary Ann Angel.[14] Other than that, they do not discuss his marriage relationships or family life.
In Chapter 23, "Understanding the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage," two instances of the term "wives" were modified to "[wife]," with brackets included to notify the reader of the editorial change. Since the statements did not refer to Brigham's own wives, but were part of his counsel to men regarding their marriages, the edited reading is easier for today's Latter-day Saints, none of whom are married to more than one wife.
The next manual in the instructional series—Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith—includes this clarifying statement in the "Historical Summary" of President Smith's life:
This book is not a history, but rather a compilation of gospel principles as taught by President Joseph F. Smith. However, in order to put the teachings in a historical framework, the following list is provided to summarize some of the milestones in his life that have most immediate relationship to his teachings. This summary omits some important events in his personal life, including his marriages (plural marriage was being practiced in the Church at that time) and the births and deaths of his children, to whom he was devoted.[15]
This explanation, which is almost certainly directed at detractors of the Brigham Young manual, clarifies that the purpose of the series is not biographical or historical, but didactic. Other Church publications that are historical discuss the subject of plural marriage and its practice among the Latter-day Saints in the nineteenth century.[16]
Note also that a careful reading of the quotations as shown in the Brigham Young manual or in their original sources (which are clearly referenced in the manual) will show that Brigham is not actually referring to his own wives and family in these quotes but to the families of the people he was addressing, so the suggestion that this quote somehow recasts Brigham as a monogamist is somewhat puzzling. The fact that the author of the letter mentions changing "wives" to "wife" in the Brigham Young manual without sharing the actual quote, which provides this additional explanatory context, suggests that this criticism is borrowed from elsewhere, since many sectarian critics of the church picked up on this story when the manual first came out and characterized it in similar terms and without the proper context, as the author has done here. A FairMormon publication by Mike Parker, "The Church’s Portrayal of Brigham Young," explains further:
In Chapter 23, “Understanding the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage,” two instances of the term “wives” were modified to “[wife],” with brackets included to notify the reader of the editorial change. Since the statements did not refer to Brigham’s own wives, but were part of his counsel to men regarding their marriages, the edited reading is easier for today’s Latter-day Saints, none of whom are married to more than one wife.
The next manual in the instructional series–Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith–includes this clarifying statement in the “Historical Summary” of President Smith’s life:
This book is not a history, but rather a compilation of gospel principles as taught by President Joseph F. Smith. However, in order to put the teachings in a historical framework, the following list is provided to summarize some of the milestones in his life that have most immediate relationship to his teachings. This summary omits some important events in his personal life, including his marriages (plural marriage was being practiced in the Church at that time) and the births and deaths of his children, to whom he was devoted.10
This explanation, which is almost certainly directed at detractors of the Brigham Young manual, clarifies that the purpose of the series is not biographical or historical, but didactical. Other Church publications that are historical discuss the subject of plural marriage and its practice among the Latter-day Saints in the nineteenth century.11
The Brigham Young manual and the manuals that followed it include selected teachings on selected subjects that have application to subjects of concern to today's Latter-day Saints. They do not teach history, but how to live the gospel of Jesus Christ. Despite the complaints of its detractors, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not engaged in a cover up, nor is it attempting to hide an "embarrassing past."
Furthermore, the use of square brackets is an accepted editorial convention when a later author wants to use an earlier author's words but change them slightly to fit a different purpose without changing the overall message of the quote. In the case of the quote in question, Brigham Young is giving counsel to a group of men on how they can be good leaders in their families, which for many of them at the time would have included polygamous marriages. In the modern church, members would only have one spouse, yet the counsel on how to be good leaders of families is still relevant, though it would require an editorial change (clearly marked in square brackets) to change "wives" to "wife".
Critical sources |
|
Notes
The author notes that "[o]ne LDS educator in 1967 wrote about the 'causes' of conflict in Nauvoo…without mentioning plural marriage."Author's sources:
- Kenneth W. Godfrey, “Causes of [Mormon sic] Non-Mormon Conflict in Hancock County, Illinois, 1839–1846” (PhD diss., Brigham Young University, 1967), chap 7.
Censorship of Church History (edit)
The author cites the paper as "Causes of Non-Mormon Conflict…."Author's sources:
- Citation error Correct title is: "Causes of Mormon Non-Mormon Conflict…" (emphasis added)
Notes
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.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now