Some more thoughts on polygamy

[_beastie]

Don't forget another reprehensible fact: women who turned down Joseph Smith or BY's offers were often slandered and libeled. The most extreme case was Martha Brotherton, who was called a whore from her mother's breast in the church newspaper. Others were slandered through rumor, often spreading the lie that they were sexually involved with another man, like Bennett.

No matter how many times I read this stuff, it never fails to sicken me.

[_truth dancer]

So here is how to deal with the behavior of Joseph Smith regarding his treatment of women, his lies, cheating, destroying reputations, and so forth:

Don't allow yourself to discover it.

If you do discover something, don't believe it.

Those who said Joseph Smith was less than a great man were/are liars.

It will all make sense in the next life.

"God said," so any behavior is fine and dandy.

Our ways are not God's ways.

We weren't there so who knows what really happened.

Put it on the shelf and do not think about it.

In sum, deny, justify, rationalize, ignore, minimize, attack.

As a decent human being, there is no way, IMHO, to justify Joseph Smith's horrific behavior. NONE!

~dancer~

[_Scottie]

There's an obvious corrolary that's in play when Joseph says "an angel will kill me if I don't marry you", and that is "an angel will kill me if you don't marry me". Basically he's telling the girls that if they don't agree to marry him, he's going to be killed. What young teenage girl wants to get the Prophet killed due to her own "selfishness"? If that's not coercive in the extreme, then I don't know what is. It's obscenely coercive.

The thing that gets me here is that we have a modern day equivalent to what Joseph Smith said. You all remember Oral Roberts, who said a 700 foot tall Jesus appeared to him said that he had to raise a million dollars or God would kill him.

I remember hearing all the LDS who chuckled and rolled their eyes at this OBVIOUS fraud, because, well, God just doesn't work that way.

[_asbestosman]

As a decent human being, there is no way, IMHO, to justify Joseph Smith's horrific behavior. NONE!

Assuming, of course, that he actually did what you all say he did.

[_Runtu]

I also tend to believe that the real apologists (the guys who publish in FARMS like DCP) have much better responses than mine. I suspect that they remain silent on those points because they know that the responses are utterly useless to convincing those who see things differently. But why, you ask, haven't they told me anything about it? 1) I haven't done my homework 2) I'm not even struggling with it right now and 3) I might blab it to you guys which would just create useless aggrivation to all.

There is actually a FARMS Review reply to Compton's book: http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display ... iew&id=290

Isn't it interesting that the book reviewers complain because Compton's book isn't polemical either way? They want him to choose sides, and because he doesn't, they seem to suspect that he's subtly anti-polygamy and by extension anti-Mormon.

Having just read the book, I'm amazed at how scrupulously fair Compton is. In spots where it would be easy to see Joseph Smith and his cohorts as rather despicable, Compton takes pains to show a "sympathetic" view that is entirely unnecessary unless Compton actually feels some sympathy toward his subjects.

[_Runtu]

Again, one person may have misunderstood Joseph, but not dozens over many years.

I like you abman, but denial is not a good thing.

I would like to ask a potentially personal question if I might. Feel free to ignore it or whatever. How do the faithful LDS you know (parents, etc.) deal with it?

Let's see:

Dad: Joseph was a womanizer. So what?
Mom: It's all lies, anti-Mormon lies.
Sister and BIL: "We made a conscious decision not to study church history because we know that there's stuff in there we couldn't handle."
Wife: I don't want to talk about it. It doesn't matter anyway because the church is true.

[_Runtu]

I also tend to believe that the real apologists (the guys who publish in FARMS like DCP) have much better responses than mine.

Have you read Sam Katich's piece on the FAIR site? To my mind, it remains the best apologetic response, but it's not particularly good.

I suspect that they remain silent on those points because they know that the responses are utterly useless to convincing those who see things differently.

Or maybe they don't have a good answer. Just sayin'.

But why, you ask, haven't they told me anything about it? 1) I haven't done my homework 2) I'm not even struggling with it right now and 3) I might blab it to you guys which would just create useless aggrivation to all.

No worries. I went years knowing this stuff without being bothered by it.

[_Runtu]

As a decent human being, there is no way, IMHO, to justify Joseph Smith's horrific behavior. NONE!

Assuming, of course, that he actually did what you all say he did.

He did.

[_Ray A]

Isn't it interesting that the book reviewers complain because Compton's book isn't polemical either way? They want him to choose sides, and because he doesn't, they seem to suspect that he's subtly anti-polygamy and by extension anti-Mormon.

Having just read the book, I'm amazed at how scrupulously fair Compton is. In spots where it would be easy to see Joseph Smith and his cohorts as rather despicable, Compton takes pains to show a "sympathetic" view that is entirely unnecessary unless Compton actually feels some sympathy toward his subjects.

I'm not sure how you draw this conclusion, Runtu. Here is one excerpt:

Overall, In Sacred Loneliness is extremely informative. The book features a high level of research, generally good judgment in the use of source materials, and a fairly comprehensive collection of known data pertaining to the wives of Joseph Smith. No biographer in Mormon history has ever been ambitious enough to write a group biography as extensive as this. Because of the complexity of the subject and an obvious lack of detailed primary sources, the job of compiling full-chapter biographies of Joseph Smith's plural wives could be insurmountable. In Sacred Loneliness was recently honored with the annual best book award from the Mormon History Association. This recognition is deserved because it is the most detailed study of the lifetime experiences of the women sealed to Joseph Smith.

I certainly don't believe they think he's anti-Mormon, and Dan Peterson has referred to Compton as a "good friend" of his. Your "by extension" is mistaken, I think. What specifically in the review leads you to think they think he's anti-Mormon? Compton did write in the introduction that he felt polygamy was a "failed 19th century experiment", or something along those lines. I'd have to check it. But that doesn't make him even "subtly anti-Mormon".

[_Runtu]

Ray,

Did you miss this part?

It is important to know the viewpoint of anyone who interprets the teachings and activities of the Prophet Joseph Smith, especially when addressing a challenging subject like plural marriage. Compton is forthright about his position: "I am a practicing Mormon who considers himself believing but who rejects absolutist elements of the fundamentalist world view, e.g., the view of Joseph Smith as omniscient or morally perfect or receiving revelation unmixed with human and cultural limitations. However, I do accept non-absolutist incursion of the supernatural into human experience" (p. 629).

This position is applied in a consistent campaign against plural marriage, with repeated editorializing on the subject. For example, after acknowledging the religious integrity of men and women in polygamy, the introduction adds: "Nevertheless, my central thesis is that Mormon polygamy was characterized by a tragic ambiguity. . . . It was the new and everlasting covenant, having eternal significance. . . . On the other hand . . . it was a social system that simply did not work in nineteenth-century America" (p. xiii). The preface argues this point with a few non-Joseph Smith examples. Is Compton claiming that his book proves the failure of polygamy—or that he wrote the book because he holds this premise? The author seems to wear twin hats of historian and social theorist. For instance, Agnes Coolbrith Smith became the widow of Don Carlos Smith in 1841 and was afterward sealed to him for eternity and married for time, first to her brother-in-law Joseph Smith and later to his cousin George Albert Smith. However, pressures of the exodus blocked this last relationship, and Agnes married William Pickett and moved to California. Later Pickett deserted her. In Sacred Loneliness opines it was illogical to return to Utah because "polygamy was almost an institutionalized form of marital neglect" (p. 170). In another case, the author says that Orson Whitney followed his grandfather and father "in accepting the onerous burden of polygamy" (p. 531). Actually, Orson married his second wife with the consent of the first and lived in the normative dual-wife pattern in Utah. In fact, Compton describes how well this two-household system worked through the fairness of Horace Whitney, Orson's father, and the considerate sisterhood of his wives (see p. 513).

The author explains and reexplains his title: "Often plural wives who experienced loneliness also reported feelings of depression, despair, anxiety, helplessness, abandonment, anger, psychosomatic symptoms, and low self-esteem" (p. xiv–xv). If plurality was sacred, "its practical result, for the woman, was solitude" (p. xv). The narrative sustains this dramatic, tragic mood. Compton paints his subjects with an assortment of brushes. At times he uses the brightest colors and lineaments of faith in interpreting these women, while in other instances he employs mostly muted hues and shadows to achieve a dark and foreboding biographical landscape. The attempt at psychohistory too often fails for lack of materials, as the author regularly admits. Obviously, taking more wives meant spending less time with any one of them. On the other hand, the above complex of "desertion reactions" is not an inevitable result of the system. Joseph Smith's situation is atypical, with complicating tensions of a new teaching and the necessity for secrecy, not to speak of his murder, which imposed grief and unforeseen adjustments on his wives. Moreover, the number of Joseph Smith's sealings, as well as those of Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, is not representative of Mormon polygamy in the nineteenth century. These leaders set examples of willingness to obey the principle, but Stanley Ivins found that 66.3 percent of Utah polygamists had two wives, and another 21.2 percent had three wives.2 In Sacred Loneliness goes beyond its narrative and anecdotal scope in making subjective judgments on plural marriage.