Two new essays from Gospel Topics Essays

[Maureen]

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng

 

M.

[PolarVortex]

Very impressive.  I listen to a lot of LDS-friendly and LDS-positive podcasts, and I'm struck by the number of people (sometimes RMs) who aren't bothered too much by anti-LDS writings but who are really shaken by the grimy details of plural marriage.  These new essays have few smudges of pro-LDS spin here and there, but on they whole they seem honest and realistic.  I hope more essays come out soon.

[The Folk Prophet]

These new essays have few smudges of pro-LDS spin here and there, 

 

Such as?

[Maureen]

...I hope more essays come out soon.

 

Quite a few essays have already come out. Here's a list of them that can also be found at Gospel Topics Essays.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_history/Gospel_Topics_essays

 

M. 

[RMGuy]

Such as?

Such as: "The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday."

 

Why not just call a spade a spade.  She was 14.  

 

I too am glad they released the essays and are being more open than in the past.  This however is a good example of the 'spin' PV was referencing.  

[The Folk Prophet]

Such as: "The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday."

 

Why not just call a spade a spade.  She was 14.  

 

Well that's just silly, and ridiculously nit-picky.

 

Why say it that way? Because it's less detailed. Several months before 15 gives a more accurate picture. Just "14" is less accurate. "Late into here 14th year", or "14 and around 9 or 10 months", would be an odd way to say it. Something akin to "almost 15" is clear and accurate. When I get asked how old I am a few months before a birthday, I'll generally say, "almost __". But, of course, we get to call it "spin" to smear the church just a wee bit more, so -- yeah, always helpful. Heaven forbid we look for ways to build up the kingdom instead. 

 

Really though? Marrying an almost 15-year-old is less potentially offensive than marrying a 14 year old? What if the youngest he'd married had actually been 15? Would that make it all hunky-dory with the anti crowd?

 

Interesting. I suppose those who are looking for criticism of the church will find it in anything they do. "Spin" is in the eye of the beholder, apparently.

 

Still...I can accept that this is "spin" if we want to call it that (though I would point out, that calling it "spin" is spin itself). But, okay. It's spin. Accurate and detailed spin. But spin. 

[Guest]

Well, I just saw Pride and Prejudice and Lydia was 15 when she ran off with Wickham and got married and her mother was so proud that she got married when she was only 15 (as opposed to her older sisters who are still unmarried).  So... we know 15 is good but the jury is up on 14.

 

 

Okay, I jest!

[omegaseamaster75]

Some pro LDS spin:

 

"Many details about the early practice of plural marriage are unknown."

 

"later reminiscences are not always reliable. Some ambiguity will always accompany our knowledge about this issue. Like the participants, we “see through a glass, darkly” and are asked to walk by faith.^3"

 

"Other women left no records, making it unknown whether their sealings were for time and eternity or were for eternity alone." Leaving open the idea that there "may" have been sexual relations, but not admitting it

 

Tons of Pro LDS spin. 

 

They have addressed the matter leaving big wide open holes in the complete story. I understand this. I really do get it, but lets not pretend that this article has not been combed over with a very fine toothed comb.

[The Folk Prophet]

Some pro LDS spin:

 

"Many details about the early practice of plural marriage are unknown."

 

"later reminiscences are not always reliable. Some ambiguity will always accompany our knowledge about this issue. Like the participants, we “see through a glass, darkly” and are asked to walk by faith.^3"

 

"Other women left no records, making it unknown whether their sealings were for time and eternity or were for eternity alone." Leaving open the idea that there "may" have been sexual relations, but not admitting it

 

Tons of Pro LDS spin. 

 

They have addressed the matter leaving big wide open holes in the complete story. I understand this. I really do get it, but lets not pretend that this article has not been combed over with a very fine toothed comb.

 

How are any of those spin? Are you suggesting that many details are known that the church is hiding? Are you suggesting that all the later reminiscences are reliable? Are you suggesting that all the women left records?

 

How on earth do you read "spin" from "we don't know everything"?

 

Sheesh. At least RMGuy's one can legitimately be called spin.

 

I hate to tell you this, but there ARE big wide open holes in the complete story. They aren't leaving them. They exist. They're reality. Pretending like we have the complete story (as the anti crown like to do) is the spin. We don't.

 

Oh...no...now my reply has spin too!

 

Combing over an article with a fine toothed comb is called good editing, is good practice, and a genuine way to reliability. Of course it was combed over. Throwing any old willy-nilly garbage into it would be irresponsible.

[Just_A_Guy]

Meh.  Ya wanna see spin, try reading what the (Nephite) authors of the Book of Mormon say about the Lamanites; or what the Christian authors of the Bible say about the Jews; or what the Jewish authors of the Bible say about . . . pretty much everyone else.

 

People write history the way they want other people to perceive it.  There's no more evidence, for example, that Helen Kimball's sealing to Smith was sexual; than that it was nonsexual.  But Omegaseamaster's 11:24 AM post is clearly phrased in such a way as to lead us to conclude that all of Smith's sealings (including, presumably, Kimball's) were, indeed, sexual.  Why?  Because he perceives the history in a particular way, and he quite naturally thinks that his perception is right and that his readers should therefore be persuaded to share in that perception.

 

The difference is that some authors try to present themselves as unbiased, whereas others profess to no such elevated status.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[omegaseamaster75]

Why can't it just be what it is? The church is within it's rights to sugar coat it a little bit, I agree documentation is sparse there is a lot of hearsay and 2nd hand accounts, this should be and was wisely left out. 

 

I did not say or allude to Joseph Smiths marriages being sexual in nature at all. I did say that the wording of the authors has left reason to think that "some" were.

 

I personally think that most were not sexual in nature largely due to the lack of issue that would have been produced as a result. There is no record that I am aware of a bunch of Smith jrs running around. That said lets not kid ourselves.

[omegaseamaster75]

How are any of those spin? Are you suggesting that many details are known that the church is hiding? 

Are you suggesting that we as a body of members have received full disclosure from the church about everything?

[Just_A_Guy]

I owe you an apology, Omegaseamaster; I lost track of context a little bit and forgot that the quote to which you were referring deals specifically with Smith's polyandrous marriages; not his plural marriages generally. 

 

Even so, I think the essay's position is right on the money:  The Church can't say as a matter of historical fact that Smith never consummated any of those marriages; because we just don't know. You can't prove a negative; and endeavoring to do so would undermine the integrity of what's supposed to be a level-headed and candid survey of the topic.  The article does point out that some of these marriages were clearly platonic, notes the dearth of statements implying that any polyandrous marriages functioned to the contrary, and then goes on to hypothesize a couple of explanations that all build on the idea of these marriages as being non-sexual.  No responsible historian would go further.

[Just_A_Guy]

Are you suggesting that we as a body of members have received full disclosure from the church about everything?

 

*Snort*  To hide something, you've got to know you have it first--as the Church learned, to its cost, during the Hofmann affair when the Church denied to the press that it had the William McLellin papers, only to have them subsequently turn up in a First Presidency vault that had never been properly cataloged.

 

But, TFP's question interests me, too.  What primary sources containing insights into Joseph Smith's sex life, has the Church got squirreled away somewhere?

Edited October 23, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[PolarVortex]

Such as?

 

"Most of those sealed to Joseph Smith were between 20 and 40 years of age at the time of their sealing to him. The oldest, Fanny Young, was 56 years old. The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday."

 

Obviously someone spent a lot of time hammering out the precise wording of this.  It's not wrong, but it certainly has a pro-LDS spin.  It omits all mention of Joseph's other teenaged wives, of which there were several, and (as RMGuy notes and as I also noticed) it describes a 14-year-old wife as "several months before her 15th birthday" to make her seem older.  A day or a week before her birthday... okay.  Several months?  Clear spin.  But that's okay, it's a very mild spin that does not distort any facts.  My resume contains worse (nothing with wives, however).

Edited October 23, 2014 by PolarVortex

[The Folk Prophet]

Are you suggesting that we as a body of members have received full disclosure from the church about everything?

 

The church has no responsibility to full disclosure. The question isn't whether they've disclosed everything. It's whether they are consciously hiding things.

[The Folk Prophet]

"Most of those sealed to Joseph Smith were between 20 and 40 years of age at the time of their sealing to him. The oldest, Fanny Young, was 56 years old. The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday."

 

Obviously someone spent a lot of time hammering out the precise wording of this.  It's not wrong, but it certainly has a pro-LDS spin.  It omits all mention of Joseph's other teenaged wives, of which there were several, and (as RMGuy notes and as I also noticed) it describes a 14-year-old wife as "several months before her 15th birthday" to make her seem older.  A day or a week before her birthday... okay.  Several months?  Clear spin.  But that's okay, it's a very mild spin that does not distort any facts.  My resume contains worse (nothing with wives, however).

 

I'm sorry. I don't see this as "spin". In fact, calling it "spin" is the distortion. I don't deny it's carefully worded. I don't think mentioning every wife and every age is necessary or else it's "spin". Frankly, the idea that it needs to is ridiculous. It's pretty straightforward. It's not negative. But it's not particularly positive either.

 

As I said, the "before her 15th birthday" thing doesn't really work for me as an effort to portray Joseph in a better light. Calling it spin implies it's somehow better to marry a 15 yr old than a 14 yr old. I'm not seeing it.

 

Calling it a spun projection seems to me more critical than fair.

[PolarVortex]

I think we are using the word "spin" in different senses.  I am using it in the "point of view" sense, and others may be using it in the "bias" sense.  I am not criticizing the Church and not distorting anything, IMHO.

 

Well, this forum would hardly be interesting if we all had the same opinion.  It sounds like there is much agreement that these essays are good.

[The Folk Prophet]

I think we are using the word "spin" in different senses.  I am using it in the "point of view" sense, and others may be using it in the "bias" sense.  I am not criticizing the Church and not distorting anything, IMHO.

 

Well, this forum would hardly be interesting if we all had the same opinion.  It sounds like there is much agreement that these essays are good.

 

Fair enough. I read calling it "spin" as critical. If you didn't mean it that way, cool. I do think it reads that way though.

[carlimac]

"Most of those sealed to Joseph Smith were between 20 and 40 years of age at the time of their sealing to him. The oldest, Fanny Young, was 56 years old. The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday."

 

Obviously someone spent a lot of time hammering out the precise wording of this.  It's not wrong, but it certainly has a pro-LDS spin.  It omits all mention of Joseph's other teenaged wives, of which there were several, and (as RMGuy notes and as I also noticed) it describes a 14-year-old wife as "several months before her 15th birthday" to make her seem older.  A day or a week before her birthday... okay.  Several months?  Clear spin.  But that's okay, it's a very mild spin that does not distort any facts.  My resume contains worse (nothing with wives, however).

What is wrong with pro-LDS spin?

[omegaseamaster75]

The church has no responsibility to full disclosure. The question isn't whether they've disclosed everything. It's whether they are consciously hiding things.

Do you think that they are not consciously hiding things?

[omegaseamaster75]

What is wrong with pro-LDS spin?

Nothing, I think this article has a very pro LDS "spin" to it and that's a good thing for the general body of the membership.

[The Folk Prophet]

Do you think that they are not consciously hiding things?

 

*shrug*

 

Can't say. I doubt it. It'd be pretty hard for them to in today's world. Age of information and all.

 

But if they are, I trust that it's right that they are.

 

Anyhow, I certainly don't read these articles as them trying to hide something.

[omegaseamaster75]

Nor do I, I think it is great that this information is being put forth and available to the general public of the church. I think that it is good that the church recognizes that the sources quoted are "reliable".

 

There is a cloud of mystery surrounding who Joseph Smith was, this pulls back the curtain just a little bit.

[Suzie]

People write history the way they want other people to perceive it.  There's no more evidence, for example, that Helen Kimball's sealing to Smith was sexual; than that it was nonsexual.  But Omegaseamaster's 11:24 AM post is clearly phrased in such a way as to lead us to conclude that all of Smith's sealings (including, presumably, Kimball's) were, indeed, sexual.  Why?  Because he perceives the history in a particular way, and he quite naturally thinks that his perception is right and that his readers should therefore be persuaded to share in that perception.

 

The difference is that some authors try to present themselves as unbiased, whereas others profess to no such elevated status.

 

I think any serious Historian knows we do not have conclusive evidence that proves that Smith's marriages were sexual. As a matter of fact, Helen continued living with her parents. Personally, I believe there is a possibility some were indeed sexual but it is just of course pure speculation on my part.

 

Generally speaking,  it seems like we still struggling with the concept of polygamy in our Church history and I mean, us, as members of the Church specially related to how we go about teaching non-members about it. We seem to want to make it sound "better" (for lack of a better word) because we seem to be afraid about what people would say about us.

 

The thing is, it is part of our history and when we try to make it sound in any other way than the reality, we are indirectly implying shame and embarrassment for something we do not totally understand (I am speaking generally, not about the essays in question)

 

As an example, the dates of birth for Helen Mar Kimball are publicly known (August 22nd, 1828) yet in FamilySearch.org her birth date appears as "about 1820" and her marriage date as "May, 1843". I know exactly what "about" means, but again, what exactly are we trying to do here? Make it look like she got married at 23? Same for Sarah Ann Whitney who was 17 when she married Smith, again her birth date is publicly known (22nd March 1825) but in the same web site it appears as "about 1820") and her marriage date as "27th July 1842". Was she 22 when she married Joseph? No, she wasn't.

 

Edit: Forgot to add the link:

 

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.2.1/M18D-5C8%C2%A0

 

I am not trying to nit-pick and I am certainly not blaming the Church for this (I do not know who made the entries) but I am just trying to point out our own struggle with straightforward talk about Plural Marriage, particularly related to teenage wives.

Edited October 25, 2014 by Suzie