- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I know we’ve had countless threads on this but can anyone link some good resources for me about who Joseph Smiths wives were? Sites exist but are not unbiased in my opinion. The definitive source of information is the Compton book “In Sacred Lomeliness”. Most sites don’t distinguish between the types of relationships that existed, and that’s a major weakness. “In Sacred Loneliness” can be difficult for someone who is new to the topic, but it is an excellent treatise, imo. ‘thewivesofjosephsmith.org’ has most of them listed. It’s created with a slightly less positive spin which (apparently) is a bit selective with the quotes used. But having said that, it’s still a useful quick reference. I don’t think the information is inaccurate. Maybe a little selective. I use it a fair amount.
There’s also familysearch.org. Joseph’s ancestral file lists over 50 wives. It’s user generated content through, so probably not entirely reliable!
Brian Hales also runs a website that has a more apologetic slant: Old-Timer wrote:“In Sacred Loneliness” can be difficult for someone who is new to the topic, but it is an excellent treatise, imo.
The great part about “In Sacred Lonliness” is that it attempts to paint a picture of who these women where rather than just list the names.
Ciasiab wrote:Brian Hales also runs a website that has a more apologetic slant:
http://josephsmithspolygamy.com/ http://josephsmithspolygamy.com/JSWives/JSWivesList02.html Great resource… but… can someone pay for a day of web-designer time. It’s like visiting a website from the 1990s!
Brian Hales has a new series out on Polygamy….was wondering if anyone has read it. The reviews imply that he claims there was no sex involved. I’m starting with volume 3 because it is shortest, and also because Hales said that it was actually a good place to start. In response to the allegation that sex was not involved, Brian does not claim that. Concerning the polyandrous marriages, Hales claims that it probably only happened in 1 or 2 cases. Hales states that nearly all these polyandrous sealings were not sexual, but he does admit that sex probably was involved in a case or two. He also argues that sex was not involved in the case of 14 year old Mary Rollins Lightner, and sex was much less important than the sealings in many cases. So yes Hales is downplaying that sex happened, but he is not denying that it happened. He is also arguing that he thinks he has identified a child of Joseph with a polygamous wife, though I am sure that there is some question to support his claim. I know of no DNA evidence to support this claim. If anyone has listened to DB’s mormondiscussion.podbean.com interview with Brian Hales, I’m interested in your reaction. I didn’t want to leave a lengthy, or especially critical comment at the site itself. So, this comment is about the interview, not the books.
My impression of Brian Hales is that he is a good, sincere, intelligent, honest person. He seems entirely without guile. But I am inclined to describe his thinking as “quirky.” I put off listening to the podcast because I didn’t know what to expect from the author of what seems to be the definitive work on the subject. I was afraid he would be intoning about the will of the Lord. I was frankly relieved after listening. First DBMormon conducts great interviews. Beyond that, I didn’t hear anything much new and certainly
nothingthat adds to the God-commanded-it column. In fact, the whole endeavor comes off more haphazard and ill-conceived than before. Hales says – in a sort of “near as I can figure” way – that Joseph was anticipating more worthy women than men in the hereafter and they would not have spouses. At the end of the interview, when DB asks, “Does my wife need to worry about polygamy?” Hales says that he doesn’t think there’s going to be enough extra worthy women. ??? We redid the numbers, and, turns out, we don’t need polygamy after all.
I really like him because he doesn’t seem to be spinning anything. He’s just done the research, followed his nose, reached his conclusions and has his honestly arrived-at opinions. But I can’t connect with his logic. He says, “Emma did accept it, she really did.” Then after Emily Partridge and Joseph sleep together in the Smith home, “she turned against it.” DB called this “waffling” on Emma’s part – not a word I would choose. Hales also says as some point that Joseph tried not to lie. That’s a mindset I can’t wrap my brain around.
He has a very narrow, defined, clinical approach that doesn’t seem disdainful of women, but just kind of distant and uncomprehending.
Anyway, if anyone else listens to the interview, I’d like to hear your thoughts.
Ann, I did listen to the DBMormon interview, and I listened to the one at Mormon Stories as well. I’ve also heard Brian speak several times at Mormon History Association, Sunstone, and FAIR. I will say that DBMormon seemed to be rooting for Brian in the interview, and the interview did seem to try to put a more positive spin than the John Dehlin interview. I enjoyed both interviews, but I think I did enjoy John’s interview a bit more. John’s seems a little more objective than DBMormon’s, but I did enjoy both interviews. Having said that, I think I do agree with your overall impression. At Sunstone a few years ago, Brian made the claim that there were no polyandrous marriages. In the Q&A, I asked him about an unusual situation in Utah where a non-LDS family was travelling through Utah and converted. They had children (2 girls if memory serves), but could have no more children because the man had been injured or something like that. Many women of the day told her that she should divorce her husband since he could no longer father children. They decided to consult Brigham Young to see what they should do.
In the New Testament, if a man dies with no children, his brother is supposed to marry the wife and raise seed up to the dead brother. This is called a levirate marriage. Brigham Young said to Sister Richardson
Quote:“If I was imperfect and had a good wife I would call on some good bror. to help me that we might have increase, that a man [her husband] of this character will have a place in the Temple, receive his endowments and in eternity will be as tho nothing had happened to him in time.”76 According to Young, her husband’s sterility would not bar him from the most important temple ordinances, and his eternal reward would not be adversely affected. As for having additional children, Mary Ann could be married in a civil ceremony to another man who would father her children. By being sealed for eternity to Edmund, Mary Ann as well as all her children, would belong to him.
The couple eventually accepted the plan, but only reluctantly.
(I blogged about it in more detail at
http://mormonheretic.org/2009/11/08/surrogate-parenthoodtypes-of-polygamist-marriages-daynes-part-3/ I related the story (minus the names because I couldn’t remember them.) Hales finished the story for me and stated that he had pretty good evidence that this wasn’t true polyandry, because the Richardsons were divorced while Sister Richardson got pregnant twice with Frederick Cox as the father. After giving birth to the 2 sons, the Richardsons remarried and raised the boys as their own.
Quote:For about twenty years Cox did not see his sons. When he did, he shook their hands heartily, looked at them and listened to them unceasingly during their visit, but never mentioned the relationship between them.80
To me, this seems like a pretty good case of polyandry, but Hales insists that because they were legally divorced, it is not polyandry–in that she was sexually monogamous to consecutive men–she wasn’t having sex with both men in a three-way or anything. Well, I guess technically Hales is right, but in my mind, if the divorce was always assumed to be temporary, arguing that it was serial sexual monagamy instead of polyandry is splitting hairs a bit. It seems like he is arguing the point a bit too hard.
I purchased his 3 volume set, but have only read about 2 chapters of vol 3 so far. There seems to be a big deal about a “scrape” vs “affair” that I don’t really understand why he is making such a distinction. I even had Don Bradley stop by and give his 2 cents, but I’m not clear what the significance of the disctinction that Hales/Bradley are making. See the comments at
http://mormonheretic.org/2013/03/10/brian-hales-and-don-bradley-discuss-polygamy/ I just want to add that in reviewing my post on the Hales volumes, I came across this passage. “As I read the evidence, prior to the angel’s third visit…the Prophet had only two, or possibly three plural wives with whom he had sexual relations: Fanny Alger in Kirtland (Chapters 4-5), Louisa Beaman (Chapter 9), and possibly Agnes Moulton Coolbrith Smith, the widow of his brother Don Carlos…”
So Hales is making the case that Joseph only had sex with 3 wives (Emma would be 4), and that sex was a much more minor aspect of polygamy than others would have you believe. I haven’t read the books, but I’m sure that Compton disagrees with Hales about there being only 3 that had sex with Joseph.
mormonheretic wrote:So Hales is making the case that Joseph only had sex with 3 wives (Emma would be 4), and that sex was a much more minor aspect of polygamy than others would have you believe. I haven’t read the books, but I’m sure that Compton disagrees with Hales about there being only 3 that had sex with Joseph.
What is the point of this distinction? Are we just trying to prove that JS didn’t have sex with every underage girl and old maid to whom he was sealed? Are we trying to infer that if JS was a lech then he would have had sex with everyone?
If I remember correctly JS at one point had some concerns about the state of adulterers and in answer to his prayer JS was told that he wasn’t an adulterer. I like the scenario where JS develops strong feelings (love?) for a young woman (Fanny Alger) that lives in the Smith household and enters into a relationship with her. He feels so guilty about it that the idea of polygamy is developed out of his subconscious to assuage his guilt.
In this scenario – every woman that JS was sealed to that he didn’t have intimate relations with would tend to legitimize the women that he did in fact desire and had sex with. Are we doing the same thing today? Defending polygamy in general because not every sealing was motivated by sexual desire? Are we only responding to those that would accuse JS of pedophilia?
P.S. I’m not an expert in polygamy and would welcome additional input into my theory.
I agree, Roy. Justifications are not merely explanations; there always is an agenda behind them. I don’t care if there was a sexual component with a specific, small number of women; I don’t like that there was such a component with any of them. I do like, however, that it appears to have evolved and become something other than traditional polygamy / marriage (that, focused on communal / dynastic sealing, it didn’t have a sexual component) toward the end of his lifetime – which is one of the reasons why I don’t like that it developed into classic polygamy under Brigham Young.
I can explain polygamy, and even some of the demographic benefits of it as the Church solidified into almost a separate ethnic entity, but I don’t defend it. I think it might have been inevitable, but that doesn’t mean I have to believe it was God’s command or ideal. In the end, this is one of those “philosophies of men, mingled with scripture” for me – and, to me, it fits the allegory of the vineyard in Jacob 5 as wild fruit that needed to be pruned from the tree.
Urghhh… Sometimes church history sucks. I’m doing pretty well these days and coming to terms with a new paradigm of lower expectations from a prophet.
But some of this makes me want to vomit. I especially struggle with BY.
And if I were to tell my wife ‘it’s ok honey, I only had sex with 2 or maybe 3 other women, not 33,’ I’d still get a frying pan to the side of my head and a suitcase to pack.
Poor Emma.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.