Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Nauvoo Polygamy/Censorship"

(expanded)
(When lack of evidence constitutes evidence: mod)
Line 10: Line 10:
 
=Censorship=
 
=Censorship=
 
==When lack of evidence constitutes evidence==
 
==When lack of evidence constitutes evidence==
The author has a recurring theme of emphasizing information suppression and censorship within Church records. It is assumed that evidence once existed in official histories, but that "[o]fficial accounts" of plural marriage have been "redacted." (p. 356) He notes that none of Joseph's plural wives are mentioned in History of the Church. (p. xiii) The author emphasizes that ''History of the Church'' says nothing about Nauvoo on the day of Louisa Beaman's marriage to Joseph (p. 57), nor of the sealing to Agnes Smith (p. 88), nor any "hint of a wedding" to Sarah Ann Whitney. (p. 137) Apparently not certain that the point has been made, the author continues to hammer it home, noting that "[a]s usual, the History of the Church made no mention of Sylvia [Sessions Lyon] on February 8, 1842…" (p. 99) and that it "predictably gives no notice" of various other weddings. (p. 185)  Due to the ''lack'' of information, the author postulates that all mention of plural marriage have "been expurgated" from Church historical records.(p. xiii-xiv)  
+
The author has a recurring theme of emphasizing information suppression and censorship within Church records. It is assumed that evidence once existed in official histories, but that any "official accounts" of plural marriage have been "redacted." (p. 356)  
 +
 
 +
The author is careful to note that none of Joseph's plural wives are mentioned in the official ''History of the Church''. (p. xiii) Apparently not confident that we understand that point, the author emphasizes that ''History of the Church'' says nothing about Nauvoo on the day of Louisa Beaman's marriage to Joseph (p. 57), nor of the sealing to Agnes Smith (p. 88), nor any "hint of a wedding" to Sarah Ann Whitney. (p. 137) Apparently still not certain that the point has been made, the author continues to wearily hammer it home, noting that "[a]s usual, the History of the Church made no mention of Sylvia [Sessions Lyon] on February 8, 1842…" (p. 99) and that it "predictably gives no notice" of various other weddings. (p. 185)  Because there is a ''lack'' of such information, the author postulates that all mention of plural marriage has "been expurgated" from Church historical records. (p. xiii-xiv)
  
 
==Suppression versus openness==
 
==Suppression versus openness==

Revision as of 20:32, 18 March 2009


A work by author: George D. Smith

Censorship

When lack of evidence constitutes evidence

The author has a recurring theme of emphasizing information suppression and censorship within Church records. It is assumed that evidence once existed in official histories, but that any "official accounts" of plural marriage have been "redacted." (p. 356)

The author is careful to note that none of Joseph's plural wives are mentioned in the official History of the Church. (p. xiii) Apparently not confident that we understand that point, the author emphasizes that History of the Church says nothing about Nauvoo on the day of Louisa Beaman's marriage to Joseph (p. 57), nor of the sealing to Agnes Smith (p. 88), nor any "hint of a wedding" to Sarah Ann Whitney. (p. 137) Apparently still not certain that the point has been made, the author continues to wearily hammer it home, noting that "[a]s usual, the History of the Church made no mention of Sylvia [Sessions Lyon] on February 8, 1842…" (p. 99) and that it "predictably gives no notice" of various other weddings. (p. 185) Because there is a lack of such information, the author postulates that all mention of plural marriage has "been expurgated" from Church historical records. (p. xiii-xiv)

Suppression versus openness

Moreover, the author assumes that there were alternating cycles of suppression and openess. "The cyclical nature of this suppression of information, first in Illinois and later in Utah, left a brief window in Mormon history from which most of the documentation has been recovered." (p. xiv) He seems privy to the details of these cycles, noting that "[e]fforts to suppress the story of Nauvoo until the 1852 announcement [of polygamy in Utah] restricted the breadth and depth of the records that were kept. (p. 356)