|
|
| Line 692: |
Line 692: |
| | |- | | |- |
| | | | | | |
| − | ====108====
| |
| − | ||"Sarah Pratt told…Wyl…'There was an old Woman called Durfee…to keep her quiet, he admitted her to the secret blessings of celestial bliss—she boasted here in Salt Lake of having been one of Joseph Smith's wives." He follows Compton in misreading the Wyl data. Richard Anderson and Scott Faulring argue that In Sacred Loneliness misleads the reader by claiming that “Sarah Pratt mentions that she heard a Mrs. Durfee in Salt Lake City profess to have been one of Smith’s wives.” But this changes the actual report of Sarah’s comments on Mrs. Durfee: “I don’t think she was ever sealed to him, though it may have been the case after Joseph’s death. . . . At all events, she boasted here in Salt Lake of having been one of Joseph’s wives.”
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *If anything these data argue that Durfee was aware of and involved in promoting and teaching plural marriage but was not necessarily sealed to Joseph in life.
| |
| − | *SMITH FARMS article
| |
| − | *DISTORTION of SOURCE
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Wyl, Mormon Portraits, 54.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====110-111====
| |
| − | ||"When Napoleon invaded Egypt in 1798 and exposed the world to then-indecipherable ancient writings, Europe and the United States became fascinated with Egyptian artifacts. Egyptian hieroglyphics, ike the origin of Native American tribes, were mysteries of the times, sometimes regarded as clues to Indian Origins."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *"Joseph Smith had grown up…during the time when public interest in the enigmatic Egyptians was burgeoning. The Manchester, New York, rental library, within five miles of the Smith family farm, had acquired a volume on Napoleon."
| |
| − | *Joseph and Egyptian, etc.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====111====
| |
| − | ||"This is not to suggest that Smith necessarily visited the library…."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Joseph Smith and the Manchester (New York) Library," BYU Studies 22 (Summer 1982): 333-56.
| |
| − | *So why mention it if not to give that impression? It is irrelevant to Joseph Smith's thought or career.
| |
| − | *CHECK SOURCE
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====111====
| |
| − | ||"…but from the age of ten…to about age twenty-two (December 1827) when he began dictating the Book of Mormon, published accounts of Napoleon and his foray into Egypt would have been available in books, periodicals, and possibly tracts."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *[[Fallacy of possibility]]
| |
| − | *Joseph and Egyptian, etc.
| |
| − | *Smith offers us only speculation, with no evidence that Joseph paid any attention to such matters.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *No source provided.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====110 – 111 n. 150====
| |
| − | ||[Of the Chandler papyri] Joseph "translated some of the hieroglyphics by means of his white seer stone to produce 'an alphabet…[and] grammar of the Egyptian language' through July 1835."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *[[Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers]]
| |
| − | *GD Smith here acts as if a highly debated matter is settled. It is not at all clear that Joseph's seer stone was used "to produce" the alphabet and grammar. Rather, the alphabet and grammar may have been an attempt by some (possibly including Joseph) to 'reverse-engineer' a translation of Egyptian from the divine translation given of the Book of Abraham.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *History of the Church 2:235-36, 238.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====112====
| |
| − | ||A scholar in 1823 "rightly concluded that these American [Indian] symbols 'appear to have had little or nothing in common with those of the Egyptians.'"
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *[[Hebrew_and_Native_American_languages]]
| |
| − | *This is of no relevance to Joseph Smith unless we are to assume that Joseph taught that American writing could be used to illuminate ancient Egyptian. The Book of Mormon explicitly rejects any such idea, saying that "we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and ''altered by us'', according to our manner of speech…. ''none other people knoweth our language''; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof" ({{s||Mormon|9|31,34}}).
| |
| − | *GD Smith should also consider consulting scholarship more recent than 1823 if he wishes to know whether there are any links between Old World and New World languages.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Thomas Young, An Account of Some Recent Discoveries in Hieroglyphic Literature and Egypitan Antiquities (London: John Murray, 1823).
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====112====
| |
| − | ||"As we consider Joseph Smith's new religious texts in early 1842, we should review what was known of the language of ancient Egyptian, not only in 1823 when Smith began to anticipate the Book of Mormon's 'reformed Egyptian records,' but later in the 1830s and 1840s when he prepared his second Egyptian scripture, the Book of Abraham."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *GD Smith is again presuming that studies of ancient Egyptian would have had any relevance for the Book of Mormon records—yet the Book of Mormon explicitly says they would not.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====112====
| |
| − | ||"Joseph Smith… [made] the association of Native American pictographs with 'reformed Egyptian.'"
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *What evidence is there of this?
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *No source provided.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====112====
| |
| − | ||"Smith's association of these unrelated cultures [Egypt and the New World] simply reflected the prevailing misperceptions of the pre- to mid-nineteenth century."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Joseph's scriptural texts associated only a small group from the Old World with the New. His 1842 scriptures had nothing at all to do with the New World.
| |
| − | *That Joseph's own personal opinions may have reflected his time is irrelevant, unless we presume at the outset (as GD Smith does) that the Book of Mormon was a fabrication by Joseph. If it was not, then his personal views are irrelevant.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *No source provided.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====113====
| |
| − | ||"The first ancient scripture Smith presented since the Book of Mormon was the Book of Abraham."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *This claim is false. Joseph had also produced a Book of Moses and a Book of Enoch (begun June 1830) as part of his revision of the King James Bible. These materials, however, did not rely on a modification of any extant Bible text.
| |
| − | *See: Nibley link: http://farms.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/ ?id=75
| |
| − | *http://farms.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/ ?id=71
| |
| − | *http://farms.byu.edu/publications/books.php? bookid=53
| |
| − | *We don't have any Enoch wiki stuff, actually…..
| |
| − | *Maybe a new link instead?
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *{{HistoricalError}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====113 n. 157====
| |
| − | ||The JST "altered over 3,400 verses but left the deities singular and in a Trinitarian format."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *[[Godhead_and_the_Trinity]]
| |
| − | *Since the original Bible has no Nicene Trinitarian format, it would be difficult to Joseph to leave it there.
| |
| − | *If GD Smith does not mean a Nicene Trinity, then it would be strange for Joseph to alter it, since the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham all teach a non-Nicene trinitarianism.
| |
| − | *The Book of Moses ({{s||Moses|1|3,6,13,24,32-33}}, {{s||Moses|2|1}}, {{s||Moses|4|2-3,28}}) also described the distinction between Father and Son in non-Nicene terms, as did the Enoch material ({{s||Moses|5|57}}, {{s||Moses|6|51-52,57,59,66}}, {{s||Moses|7|27,39}}), long pre-dating the Book of Abraham (Summer-Winter 1830).
| |
| − | *Joseph was also teaching a non-Nicene Trinitarianism long before 1842:
| |
| − | *[[1830 statement about seeing "God"]]
| |
| − | *[[Only one Personage appears in the 1832 account]]
| |
| − | *[[Lack of contemporary Father and Son vision until 1838?]]
| |
| − | *GD Smith wants to display an evolution in Joseph's views, but he has not done the necessary legwork. He merely presumes, rather than demonstrates.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins, 620.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====114====
| |
| − | ||"The prophet coalesced astronomy, biblical mystery, ancient Egyptian writing, and Masonic ritual into portentous ceremony for his followers."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Oy vey. Lots to say here….
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *No source provided.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====114====
| |
| − | ||"The spring of 1842 was also the time when John C. Bennett began to separate himself from Smith…."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *[[John C. Bennett]]
| |
| − | *Bennett did not separate himself, Joseph forced Bennett out because of his crimes.
| |
| − | *[See also ABOVE XXXX].
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *No source provided.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====116====
| |
| − | ||Marinda Johnson "met Joseph while he was retranslating the Bible with Sidney Rigdon in her parents' home in 1831."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *[See also p. 31, 44 above.]
| |
| − | *GD Smith again does not tell us that Marinda testified against the version of Joseph's mobbing which he pushes on p. 44.
| |
| − | *See Smith FARMS, Marinda Nancy Johnson.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *No source provided.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====117-118====
| |
| − | ||Orson Hyde "was reportedly 'furious'" with Joseph's plural marriage doctrine.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *SMITH FARMS
| |
| − | *Cites Ann Eliza Young, but fails to tell the reader there are three other versions, each of which is different and hostile.
| |
| − | *Ann Eliza’s report of anger is also suspect. In the material cited by G. D. Smith, she describes Hyde “in a furious passion” because “he thought it no harm for him to win the affection of another man’s wife, . . . but he did not propose having his rights interfered with even by the holy Prophet whose teachings he so implicitly followed.” Yet Orson did not begin practicing plural marriage until after he knew of Marinda’s sealing to Joseph.
| |
| − | *Despite the hostile reports of Orson Hyde’s anger, there are no contemporary accounts of problems between Orson and Joseph, who repeatedly dined with the Hydes following Orson’s return from Palestine.
| |
| − | *While it is possible that his initial reaction was heated, this perspective derives entirely from authors writing scandalous exposés of the Mormons long after the fact.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Ann Eliza Young, Wife Number Nineteen, 324–26.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====119====
| |
| − | ||"[A]fter [John C. Bennett's] disagreement with Smith, the record of his celestial marriages was apparently expunged."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *[[John C. Bennett]]
| |
| − | *GD Smith is arguing from negative evidence—he claims that the absence of any record of Bennett's "marriages" is proof that the Church or Joseph suppressed them!
| |
| − | *He is presuming that Bennett's "marriages" were at one time sanctioned by Joseph. All the evidence indicates that Joseph was upset whenever Bennett's behavior came to his attention.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *No source provided.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====119====
| |
| − | ||"Smith told Bennett he could not withdraw from the church because he had been 'disfellowshipped' two weeks before on May 11. This apparent backdating was an attempt to discredit Bennett."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Smith has mentioned this before. He has now adopted Bennett's version completely, with no hint that there is more to the story.
| |
| − | *[Already addressed above, see pp. 65, 70, 72-73.]
| |
| − | *SMITH Bennett Material
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *No source provided.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====122====
| |
| − | ||"In Bennett's first letter…he reported that Smith 'attempted to seduce Miss Nany Rigdon,'…."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *GLS Bennett Chapter #3 Bennett to Sangamo Journal, June 27, 1842.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====123-125====
| |
| − | ||Bennett's version of the Sarah Pratt episode
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Smith Bennett Chapter #2
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====129-134====
| |
| − | ||Emma Smith pushing Eliza Snow down the stairs
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Eliza Snow pregnant
| |
| − | *GLS FARMS Paper
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====131-132====
| |
| − | ||"…historian Fawn M. Brodie thought the documentation was strong enough to include it in her biography of Smith."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Fawn Brodie's evidentiary standard was often depressingly low. She was certain that Oliver Buell was Joseph's son (based on photographic evidence) but DNA evidence has resoundingly refuted her.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *{{CriticalWork:Brodie:No Man Knows|pages=470–71}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====131 n. 195====
| |
| − | ||Smith cites the BYU Studies on Emma and Eliza, but does not disclose that those authors find that the story is not plausible.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *"“But where are we? Faced with a folk legend, with genuine documents that tell no tales, and dubious ones that contradict themselves and the contemporary accounts, perhaps it is best for us to respond as we must to many paradoxes of our history: consider thoughtfully and then place all the evidence carefully on the shelf, awaiting further documentation, or the Millennium, whichever should come first." – citation at right.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Maureen Ursenbach Beecher et al., “Emma and Eliza and the Stairs,” BYU Studies 22/1 (Fall 1982): 86–96.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====132====
| |
| − | ||Smith cites Newel and Avery, Mormon Enigma without acknowledging or engaging their arguments against the story of Emma and Eliza.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *The statement that Eliza carried Joseph’s unborn child and lost it [due to an attack by Emma] is brought into question by Eliza’s own journal. While her Victorian reticence probably would have precluded mention of her own pregnancy, if she were indeed carrying Joseph’s child, other evidence in the journal indicates that she may not have been pregnant. Eliza’s brother Lorenzo indicated that by the time she married Joseph, she was “beyond the condition of raising a family.” Also if she was “heavy with child” as the Rich account states, she would not have been teaching school, for even legally married women usually went into seclusion when their pregnancies became obvious. Eliza continued to teach school for a month after her abrupt departure from the Smith household. Her own class attendance record shows that she did not miss a day during the months she taught the Smith children, which would not have been probable had she suffered a miscarriage.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Newell and Avery, Mormon Enigma, 134.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====133====
| |
| − | ||"Most convincing of all is to think that these stories [about Emma] were circulating widely and Eliza never bothered to clarify or refute them."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Uncorrected rumor or gossip is more convincing than the absence of diary or behavioral evidence for a pregnancy as outlined by Newel and Avery (see previous)? If I do not rebut an unfounded rumor, does this mean I give it my consent? This seems a strange standard. Joseph and the members of the church tried to rebut the rumors spread by the Hurlburt-Howe affidavits, yet G. D. Smith treats them as valuable insights. The Saints, it seems, are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *No source provided.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====137====
| |
| − | ||"The History of the Church reports the day's activities…without a hint of a wedding" to Sarah Ann Whitney.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *No source provided.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====138====
| |
| − | ||"Three weeks after the wedding, Joseph took steps to spend some time with his newest bride."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Sarah Ann Whitney links
| |
| − | *Again, GD Smith fails to acknowledge that Joseph wanted Sarah Ann and her parents with her.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *No source provided.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====139====
| |
| − | ||"In an extraordinary move, the Nauvoo City Council issued an ordinance limiting the power of state courts and claiming the right to review and dismiss future writs."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Need info on this.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Roberts, Comprehensive History 2:468-69.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====142====
| |
| − | ||"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."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Joseph’s behavior is then pictured as callous toward Emma and also as evidence of an almost insatiable sexual hunger.
| |
| − | *Yet again, GD Smith does not acknowledge that Joseph wants all the Whitneys there.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====142-143====
| |
| − | ||"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 latter to 'Brother, and Sister, Whitney, and &c."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Despite acknowledging (finally!) that the letter is addressed to all three Whitneys, Smith continues to insist that Sarah Ann is the one who is to "come" and "comfort" him.
| |
| − | *He here (p. 143) reproduces the letter's full text (having used it at least four times to push his reading of Joseph needing Sarah to "comfort" him), but does not address the reason 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.
| |
| − | *Age of wife again…
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====147====
| |
| − | ||"Invites Whitneys to visit, Sarah Ann to 'comfort me' if Emma not there. Invitation accepted."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Having just reproduced the letter, Smith again insists that Sarah Ann is the one to "comfort" Joseph, even though the letter says nothing of the sort.
| |
| − | *Smith does not indicate how he knows the invitation was accepted.
| |
| − | *We do know that the Whitneys were sealed in eternal marriage three days later. But, GD Smith does not tell us that either.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *No source provided.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====147–154====
| |
| − | ||Nancy Rigdon episode
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Smith Chapter #3 on Bennett
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====149====
| |
| − | ||[Sidney Rigdon] "was in many ways a mentor to Joseph."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *What evidence is there of this? Joseph was always in charge and always the senior partner, though he was happy to make use of Rigdon's skills as an orator.
| |
| − | *Joseph had published the Book of Mormon and had the Church well established before Rigdon appeared. He did not need Sidney to "mentor" him at all.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *No source provided.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====149====
| |
| − | ||Sidney Rigdon "was not someone Joseph felt comfortable approaching to ask for his daughter's hand in polygamy. So Joseph appealed to the young woman directly."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Mind reading
| |
| − | *See Chapter #3 on Bennett
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *No source provided.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====149====
| |
| − | ||"For some reason, Marinda [Johnson Hyde] stayed [in the same house as] Apostle Willard Richards, whose wife, Jennetta, was in Massachusetts….Although the two may have lived in separate parts of the building…their living arrangements seemed to be an open scandal."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Maybe wiki this?
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *HoC 4:467
| |
| − | *Bennett, History of the Saints, 241; [error! The correct page is 243 for the claim of scandal.]
| |
| − | *Ebenezer Robinson, The Return (Oct 1890): 347 [actually most is on p. 346].
| |
| − | *(Did he copy these from Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, who uses the same page numbers?)
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====154====
| |
| − | ||"…both Nancy [Rigdon] and Martha [Brotherton] were…isolated in a locked room during the persuasive effort."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *While Nancy and Martha may well have been approached about plural marriage, it is unlikely that they were locked in rooms or confined against their will. One RLDS author argues:
| |
| − | *"The records show that Martha changed her story. As Hyrum reported to the Conference, at first she had told that she was locked in a room for days. But since that was such a ridiculous, unbelievable story, she changed it in her St. Louis affidavit to read that Brigham locked her in Joseph's office for only "about ten minutes."
| |
| − | *"It would have been impossible for Martha to have been imprisoned in any room in the Red Brick Store without it being detected. In fact, she could not have gone up and down the stairs and from room to room without being observed by many. The store was a small, two-story building, and Joseph's office was only about ten feet square. Since dozens of people came to the store daily, her calls for help would have been heard. Martha had but one witness—John Bennett, who asserted in the Sangamo Journal for July 15, 1842, "She was locked up ... I saw her taken into the accursed room."
| |
| − | *"If Martha's story had been true, there would have been many witnesses, because Joseph' s store was the hub of activity in Nauvoo. People came to the store to buy everything from food to footwear. The store building also housed the headquarters for the Church and the city. There, the people paid their tithing and taxes, and conducted banking and real estate business. The store was alive with people by day and by night, for it was also in constant use as a civic and religious center…."
| |
| − | *One suspects Bennett's influence in this part of the story, since Bennett would likewise claim Joseph locked him in a room. In Bennett's case, the story is absurd and contradicted by a non-LDS eyewitnesses.
| |
| − | *SMITH Bennett Chapter #2.
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *No source provided.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | ====155====
| |
| − | ||"As if Sarah Ann Whitney's liaison were not enough…another marriage took place…."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *Sarah Ann Whitney
| |
| − | *GD Smith persists with Sarah Ann Whitney and "liason."
| |
| − | ||
| |
| − | *No source provided.
| |
| − |
| |
| | {{EndClaimsTable}} | | {{EndClaimsTable}} |
| Page
|
Claim
|
Response
|
Author's sources
|
53
|
[Joseph] "recommended his friend, whose seventeen-year-old daughter he had just married, should 'come a little a head, and nock…at the window.'"
|
|
- Smith, Letter to "Brother and Sister [Newel K.] Whitney, and &c.," Nauvoo, Illinois, Aug. 18, 1842, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City.
|
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."
|
|
- Whitney letter, Aug. 18, 1842.
|
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.
|
|
- Whitney letter, Aug. 18, 1842.
|
54
|
“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” (p. 54).
|
- 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.
|
|
54
|
"What interested me most was how Smith went about courting…these women."
|
- No evidence that Joseph did any courting. He often used intermediaries.
- See wiki on spiritual experiences.
- Bushman on lack of wooing terminology.
|
|
55
|
"When [polygamy] was officially abandoned in 1890, 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."
|
- Need wiki article on this claim.
- Should link too to the FANNY ALGER AFFAIR or MARRIAGE wiki, which has the raw material for the answer (but one must expand into the Utah period).
|
|
55
|
Plural marriage had been a key principle of Mormon exaltation; but by adaption, celestial marriage was still said to be required, only now it meant monogamy rather than polygamy.
|
|
|
55
|
"Despite his crowded daily schedule, the prophet interrupted other activities for secret liaisons with women and girls…."
|
|
|
55
|
"He assured the women and their families that such unions were not only sanctionied but were demanded by heaven and fulfilled the ethereal principle of 'restoration.'"
|
- Does not tell us that Joseph had the women get their OWN witness.
- See spiritual experiences with plural marriage.
- Women could and did turn Joseph down with no consequences. (Need wiki?)
|
|
56
|
"There may have been even more wives and plural children."
|
- Anything might have happened.
- Fallacy of possibility.
|
|
57
|
History of the Church says nothing about Nauvoo on the day of Louisa Beaman's marriage to Joseph.
|
- Censoring history
- Specific wiki article from GLSFARMS on Smith's History of the Church nonsense.
|
|
63
|
"As will be seen, conjugal visits appear furtive and constantly shadowed by the threat of disclosure."
|
- NOTE
- I’m not sure he ever DOES show this, except with Sarah Ann Whitney. I'll watch for it….
|
|
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, telegraphing his fear of discovery if Emma happened upon his trysts”
|
|
|
65
|
"One of the instrumental people in the inauguration of plural marriage was John [C.] Bennett…."
|
- A huge leap, presuming that Bennett's adulteries were ever sanctioned by Joseph, or had anything to do with plural marriage.
- [See also p. 119]
- [GLS had 3 chapters on him; maybe use…..]
|
|
65
|
"…in 1841 [Bennett] functioned as perhaps Joseph Smith's closest confident."
|
- Ignores that Joseph began to distrust him for cause long before their public rupture.
|
|
65
|
Joseph was "sharing power" with Bennett
|
- Bennett's power was mainly secular. He did little in the religious realm. Joseph had wanted to be relieved of temporal responsibilities, and Bennett was available.
- GLS Bennett chapters
|
|
65
|
"In the spring of 1842, Bennett spoke out against Smith and was soon stripped of his offices and titles."
|
- Bennett was guilty of serial immoralities, and had been disciplined on multiple occasions. He only "spoke out" once he learned that he was to be stripped of membership in the Church.
- GD Smith has cause and effect reversed, because he doesn't want us to know of the overwhelming evidence of Bennett's guilt.
- GLS Bennett chapters
|
|
65
|
"Each accused the other of immoral behavior."
|
- Bennett was accused by far more people, over a far greater length of time, of "immoral behavior." Many of his accusers were not LDS and had nothing to do with the Mormons.
- Bennett only began to accuse Joseph once his own crimes were repeatedly revealed.
|
|
65
|
"While some of his claims may have been exaggerations, much of what he reported can be confirmed by other eyewitness accounts."
|
- Many of Bennett's claims are clearly false.
- GD Smith 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.
|
|
65
|
"Even though his statements must be weighed critically, he cannot be merely dismissed as an unfriendly source who fabricated scandal."
|
- GD Smith never does this weighing for us.
- Much of what he writes, after analysis, must be dismissed as fabrication or exaggeration, however.
- Even anti-Mormon authors warned of Bennett's problems:
- "There is, no doubt, much truth in Bennett's book…but no statement that he makes can be received with confidence."
|
|
65
|
"Bennett had an ambitious but colorful background."
|
- This hides a mountain of evidence about Bennett's pre-LDS behavior, including:
- repeatedly using others' names to fraudulently support the establishment of medical colleges
- selling bogus medical diplomas
- selling bogus diplomas in other fields (e.g., law)
- lying and misrepresentation
- serial adulteries and infidelities.
- Abandonment of wife and children
- John C. Bennett
|
|
66-67
|
"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.
|
- GD Smith 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.
|
- Smith, Saintly Scoundrel, 56.
|
68
|
“Joseph” is merely “feigning impartiality” before going on to practice “undemocratic block voting”
|
- Block voting is not undemocratic—many interest groups vote en masse for candidates which will meet their needs.
- Joseph was not feigning when he said, "We care not a fig for a Whig or Democrat….We shall go for our friends." (p. 68) He was indicating that party made no difference to the Saints; what mattered is who would agree to defend them.
- Prejudicial language
|
|
69
|
"Undeterred" by reports of a negative assessment of Bennett, Joseph "named Bennett Assistant President of the Church."
|
- Joseph knew from personal experience that "it is no uncommon thing for good men to be evil spoken against," and did nothing precipitous.
- The accusations against Bennett gained credence when Joseph learned of his attempts to persuade a young woman "that he intended to marry her." Joseph dispatched Hyrum Smith and William Law to make inquiries, and in early July 1841 he learned that Bennett had a wife and children living in the east. Non-LDS sources confirmed Bennett's infidelity: one noted that he "heard it from almost every person in town that [his wife] left him in consequence of his ill treatment of her home and his intimacy with other women." Another source reported that Bennett's wife "declared that she could no longer live with him…it would be the seventh family that he had parted during their union."
|
|
69
|
Bennett was Assistant President of the Church
|
- Presentism.
- Sidney Rigdon, a counsellor 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 counsellors 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 counsellors received keys, Bennett did not. None were apostles prior to their call.
|
|
69
|
Bennett had religious influence by being Assistant President of the Church.
|
- [This is not stated baldly, but some readers might be confused.]
- With few exceptions, Bennett "played little role in church conferences. There might have been an unofficial division of labor between Bennett and Smith. Smith handled church affairs; Bennett took the lead in secular matters."
|
|
70
|
Smith and Bennett remained confidants until about March the next year (1842)
|
- [See also p. 73 below] 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.
- [See also p. 119]
|
- No source provided.
- History unclear or in error
|
70
|
There seemed to be no office or honor within reach that Smith did not hasten to grant to Bennett.
|
- This is false: Bennett was never inducted into the "Quorum of the Anointed"—those who were receiving the temple endowment from Joseph (see above, p.66-67).
- He was also never made an apostle.
|
|
70
|
"Zina Huntington, who married Henry Jacobs instead but then reconsidered seven months later in response to Joseph's restated interest."
|
|
|
70-71
|
"Seemingly impatient, Joseph soon after married Zina's sister, Presendia, who was also already married."
|
|
|
71
|
"Bennett alleged that during the summer and fall of 1841, Smith made unsuccessful advances toward Apostle Orson Pratt's wife, Sarah."
|
- Smith 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.
- SMITH BENNETT chapter #2
|
|
71
|
"Whatever the accuracy of the quotes [i.e., Bennett's claims] the two men [Orson and Joseph] quarrelled…."
|
- Smith here avoids the necessity of dealing with the problems in Bennett's account.
|
|
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…."
|
- "Recalling" assumes that Bennett's account is truthful, and not fabricated. This has not been demonstrated.
|
|
71
|
"However, Joseph concluded that she had been wrong to reject him—and that she had failed the test. The defiance she exhibited ultimately led to alienation with her husband…."
|
- GD Smith again says nothing about Sarah and Bennett's affair, which probably had something to do with her "alienation."
|
|
72
|
"Eventually Orson accepted Joseph's explanation that he merely wanted to test Sarah's obedience, and was not seriously courting this married woman."
|
- GD Smith 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." He presents no evidence for what explanation Joseph gave Orson, or what Orson believed.
|
|
72
|
"Meanwhile, Bennett seems to have followed his leader in courting several women himself."
|
- GD Smith is here presuming that Bennett imitated Joseph.
- Bennett was also involved in operating a prostitution ring and house of ill repute in Nauvoo (Bushman RSR, 411).
- [See also p. 119]
|
72
|
"Bennett resigned from the church on May 17, 1842."
|
- 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."
|
- Andrew Smith, Saintly Scoundrel, 86–89. [This is a non-LDS biography of Bennett.]
|
72
|
"In retaliation, church leaders apparently excommunicated him on May 25…."
|
- [See also p. 75 below.] 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. 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. 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. His Nauvoo reputation in tatters, Bennett left and began plotting his revenge.
|
- History unclear or in error
- Andrew Smith, Saintly Scoundrel, 86–89.
|
72
|
"…Bennett claimed [his excommunication] was postdated to May 11 to appear that it had occurred before his resignation."
|
- [See also p. 119 for Smith acting as if this claim of Bennett's is established fact.]
- GD Smith 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).
|
- Andrew Smith, Saintly Scoundrel, 86–89.
|
73
|
"Up until early 1842, Smith and Bennett seemed to be on good terms."
|
- [See also p. 70 below] Joseph was aware of Bennett's problems by 1841 at least.
- [See above.]
|
|
73
|
"It is entirely plausible that Bennett was then privy to Smith's domestic matters."
|
- GD Smith wants to rehabilitate Bennett as a source, while glossing over the problems.
- See entry p. 65 above.
|
|
73
|
"In the spring of 1842, the two men quarrelled and Smith had Bennett excommunicated…."
|
- Joseph and Bennett did not "quarrel"—evidence of further seduction and infidelity by Bennett came to light.
- Bennett was given the chance to resign, and did so.
- Further disclosure to the high council led to Bennett's exposure and excommunication.
- [See p. 72 above.]
|
|
75
|
Zina and Henry Jacobs "were apparently willing to let the prophet insuinuate himself into their marriage."
|
|
|
75
|
"In the context of having just married a pregnant wife, [Joseph's] words acquire added meaning: 'If you will not acuse me, I will not accuse you….'"
|
|
|
75
|
The Smith diary or History of the Church do not "give any hint of conjugal contacts Smith might have had with this wife."
|
- There is no evidence anywhere for any conjungal contact.
|
|
75
|
When [Henry] Jacobs returned in June [1844] "he found Zina accompanying Joseph to private meetings involving Masonic-like handshakes, oaths, and special clothing."
|
- Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Loaded and prejudicial language
- [See also p. 85 below] Prejudicial language, in which GD Smith tries to make the endowment seem foreign, strange and alienating.
- MORE…. Zina D.H. Young, Journal, "June 5, 6, 7, 8, 9," 1844, Zina Card Brown Collection; see Bradley and Woodward, Four Zinas, 124.
- CHECK THIS SOURCE!!
|
|
77
|
"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. GD Smith 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_Law_of_Adoption
- Need to add more to wiki above?
- The image which this gives of Joseph "taking away" Henry's children is inflammatory and probably misleading.
|
|
77
|
"Some sources say [Brigham] Young advised [Henry Jacobs] to find a wife who could be his eternal partner."
|
|
|
77
|
Henry's subsequent life is not discussed by Smith, perhaps because it would provide insight into why Zina chose to remain with Brigham.
|
|
|
78
|
"Brigham explained 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."
|
- Smith 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."
- See Brigham Young's 1861 sermon—wiki? (In attached note files.)
- Allen L. Wyatt, Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young
|
- Brigham Young, "A few words of Doctrine," Oct 8, 1861, LDS Archives.
|
79
|
Presendia Buell "displayed an affinity for mystical religious experiences as one of the women who began speaking and singing in tongues…."
|
- Speaking in tongues is not a form of "mysticism."
- This language is inaccurate, alienating, and prejudicial.
|
|
79
|
Presendia "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]….."
|
|
80 n. 63
|
Fawn Brodie pointed out that Oliver was born at least a year after Presendia's husband left the church and that Oliver had the angular features and high forehead of the Smith line (No Man Knows, 2989ff, 301, 460.
|
- Joseph Smith and polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages
- 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]
- New wiki article? Joseph as father of Prescenda Buell's children?
- SMITH FARMS
- This slight nod toward an opposite point of view is inadequate, however. G. D. Smith does not mention and hence does not confront the strongest evidence. Compton’s argument against Joseph’s paternity does not rest just on a “narrow window” of opportunity but on the fact that Brodie seriously misread the geography required by that window. It is not merely a question of dates. Brodie would have Joseph travel west from his escape near Gallatin, Davies County, Missouri, to Far West in order to meet Lucinda, and then on to Illinois toward the east. This route would require Joseph and his companions to backtrack while fleeing from custody in the face of an active state extermination order. Travel to Far West would also require them to travel near the virulently anti-Mormon area of Haun’s Mill, along Shoal Creek. Yet by April 22 Joseph was in Illinois, having been slowed by traveling “off from the main road as much as possible” “both by night and by day.” This seems an implausible time for Joseph to be conceiving a child. Furthermore, it is evident that Far West was evacuated by other church leaders, “the committee on removal,” and not under the Prophet’s direction. Joseph did not regain the Saints until reaching Quincy, Illinois, contrary to Brodie’s misreading. Timing is the least of the problems with G. D. Smith’s theory.
Despite Brodie’s enthusiasm, few other authors have included Oliver on their list of possible children. With so many authors ranged against him, G. D. Smith ought not to act as if Compton’s analysis is merely about dates. Within note.
80 n. 63 [Note continued from above]….There is no DNA connection (). Compton does find it 'unlikely, though not impossible, that Joseph Smith was the actual father of' John Hiram, Presendia's seventh chld during her marriage to Buell and born in November 1843 (Sacred Loneliness, 124, 670–71). New wiki article? Joseph as father of Prescenda Buell's children?
SMITH FARMS
He makes no mention in the main text that Oliver’s paternity has been definitively ruled out by DNA testing. This admission is confined to a footnote, and its impact is minimized by its placement. After noting Compton’s disagreement with the main text’s suggestion that Oliver might be Joseph’s son, G. D. Smith writes, “There is no DNA connection,” and cites a Deseret News article. He immediately follows this obtuse phrasing with a return to Compton, who finds it “‘unlikely, though not impossible, that Joseph Smith was the actual father of another Buell child,’ John Hiram, Presendia’s seventh child during her marriage to Buell and born in November 1843” (p. 80 n. 63). Thus the most salient fact—that Joseph is certainly not Oliver's father—is sandwiched between a vicarious discussion with Compton about whether Oliver or John could be Joseph’s sons. Since G. D. Smith knows there is definitive evidence against Joseph’s paternity in Oliver’s case, why mention the debate at all only to hide the answer in the midst of a long endnote?
Within note.
|
|
81
|
"Occasionally, as King David did with Uriah the Hittite, Smith sent the husband [of potential polyandrous marriage partners] away on a mission which provided the privacy needed for a plural relationship to flower."
|
- Unmentioned—but perhaps not unimplied—is the fact that David had already committed adultery with Bathsheba, and sought to have her husband killed so he could marry her (see 2 Samuel 11). This metaphor imputes motives to Joseph where no textual evidence exists.
- Mind reading
- SMITH FARMS
|
|
81
|
"This [see above] applied to Zina…."
|
|
|
82
|
"The History of the Church makes no mention of the second Huntington nuptial…."
|
|
|
82
|
a Buell child being sealed to a proxy for Joseph with “wording [that] hints that it might have been Smith’s child….It is not clear…which of her children it might have been."
|
|
84
|
"From the inception of plural marriage, Smith demanded confidentiality from those whom he taught the principle."
|
|
- HC 4:479; Woodruff Journals 2:143.
|
85
|
"…Smith evidently adapted and redefined [elements] from the Masonic rituals and incorporated [them] as part of the unfolding Mormon temple ceremonies."
|
|
|
85
|
"The [temple] vows of secrecy and threats of blood penalties intensified the mysterious rites of celestial marriage…."
|
- Penalties_in_the_endowment
- [See also p. 75 above.]
- No "blood penalties" were associated with plural marriage.
- Prejudicial language, in which GD Smith tries to make the endowment seem foreign, strange and alienating.
|
|
88
|
"There is no mention of [Joseph's sealing to Agnes Smith] in the History of the Church."
|
|
|
92
|
Sarah Pratt reported in 1886 that Lucinda had told her nearly forty-five years earlier in 1842: "Why[,] I am his [Smith's] mistress since four years."
|
- Compton notes that this statement is "antagonistic, third-hand, and late" (In Sacred Loneliness, 650). It seems implausible that Harris would admit to being a "mistress."
- Newel and Avery, Mormon Enigma, 346 have likewise seen the "mistress" label as "an embellishment by either Sarah Pratt or W. Wyl."
- GD Smith provides none of this perspective.
|
- Wyl, Mormon Portraits, 60.
|
99
|
"As usual, the History of the Church made no mention of Sylvia [Sessions Lyon] on February 8, 1842…."
|
|
|
100
|
"During these years as Windsor's wife, Sylvia reportedly bore Smith a child in 1844…."
|
- Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages
- G. D. Smith ignores Brian C. Hales, “The Joseph Smith–Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?” Mormon Historical Studies 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57, which argues that Sylvia considered herself divorced prior to marrying Joseph polygamously, contrary to evidence misread by Compton.
|
|
103
|
"Typically, [Joseph] never mentioned his marriage to Patty [Sessions] on paper…."
|
|
|
105
|
Sarah Cleveland's husband "was a Swedenborgian, embracing a world view compatible with that of Mormons."
|
- Swedenborg_and_three_degrees_of_glory
- [See also below.]
- (this article needs work).
- These needs more argument than Smith gives it. It is not clear how being a Swedenborgian would predispose Cleveland to accept a modern prophet, new scripture, and restored priesthood authority (for example).
- Surely any world-view was somewhat compatible with the Mormons', but what about Cleveland's views were more compatible than, say, other Christians?
|
- Biography of Sarah Maryetta Kingsley, LDS Archives.
|
106
|
"John Cleveland's Swedenborgian faith might have helped prepare Sarah for some of Joseph's teachings. Like Smith, followers of Emanuel Swedenborg conceived of a pre-existent life, 'eternal marriage' for couples who had a true 'affinity' for each other, and a three-tiered heaven that required marriage for admission to the highest level."
|
- Swedenborg_and_three_degrees_of_glory
- Three degrees in heaven is a Biblical notion, it did not originate with Swedenborg or Joseph Smith.
- It is not clear what Swedenborg's "affinity" between spouses has to do with LDS plural marriage.
- Emanuel Swedenborg, Heaven and Hell, trans. George F. Dole (West Chester, Pa.: Swedenborg Foundation, 2002), 18–32.
- CHECK THIS SOURCE!
|
|
106
|
"John [Cleveland]'s continued willingness to host LDS events indicated a likely compatibility of beliefs."
|
- There are other options:
- Perhaps Cleveland was simply a tolerant man?
- Perhaps he respected the Mormons for what he had seen of them personally?
- Perhaps he respected his wife's desire to practice her own faith, despite not sharing it.
|
|
106
|
"Like some of the other husbands of women who agreed to marry the prophet, John Cleveland nevertheless became 'more and more bitter towards the Mormons.'"
|
- Joseph_Smith_and_polyandry/Book_chapter#Sarah_Kingsley_Howe_Cleveland
- GD Smith does not tell the reader that this difficulty did not occur until after Joseph's death, and the Saints had gone west. He neglects to point out that Compton noted that even six months before Joseph's death, Sarah's husband was "very friendly and frequently visited the Prophet." (Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 281).
- Thus, the implication that Joseph's plural marriage caused problems for Cleveland is not sustained by the evidence.
- GD Smith also does not tell us that one version of Sarah's decision to remain behind instead of going to Utah tells us:
- "Brigham Young and council…counciled her to stay with her Husband as he was a good man, having shown himself kind ever helping those in need, although for some reason his mind was darkened as to the Gospel. She obey[ed] the council and stayed with her Husband, and was faithfull and true to her religion and died a faithfull member of the Church…." (Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 283).
|
- Sarah Cleveland to August Lyman, 1847, John Lyman Smith Collection, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, cited by Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, 284.
|
106
|
Besides Cleveland (see above) other polyandrous husbands became more bitter against the Church.
|
- Joseph_Smith_and_polyandry/Book_chapter
- As shown above, Cleveland was not bitter about the Church or Joseph during Joseph's lifetime.
- No other examples are given. It is not clear to whom GD Smith is referring.||
|
|
|
