Thank you Mercury!

[_Tori]

Van Wagoner (who is apparently a "virulent anti Mormon", according to bob) never attributed the statement directly to Helen Mar. In both sources he specified that she "confided this to a close friend".

Moreover, her own words show that she had been misled. Whether or not she would use the stronger word "deceived" or declare she wouldn't have married him had she known the truth can be debated. But the fact that she was, in fact, misled about the nature of the marriage is beyond dispute.

It's typical of defenders of the faith to strain at the gnat while gladly swallowing the camel... and then smacking their lips and asking for more.

I never said that Van Wagoner was a virulent anti-Mormon. You need to follow the thread.

The quote Van Wagoner uses from Helen is from an virulent anti-Mormon expose of the temple ceremony, Catherine Lewis' -- a fact Van Wagoner does not mention. He cites the source all right but isn't very discriminating about it. But, he is not a trained historian.

Compton writes that the marriage was dynastic. (Compton, p. 487.)

Compton cites the source Mercury uses, says it is from an an "anti-Mormon source," and says that the "extremism of this language is suspect" and "is not credible." (Compton, p. 501.) Compton points out that Lewis also suggested that Helen said that she was being pressured to marry her own father, Heber. Compton nonetheless says the passage is "worth considering." I don't see why, but I offer this for what it is worth.

I really amazed at how undiscriminating you are about your sources, how you are willing to accept the most negative thing said about Mormonism -- no matter where it is from or who says it.

Mr. Crockett. Certainly this supposed statement made by Helen Mar isn't the most negative thing ever said about Mormonism.....is it?

[Guest]

The quote Van Wagoner uses from Helen is from an virulent anti-Mormon expose of the temple ceremony, Catherine Lewis' -- a fact Van Wagoner does not mention. He cites the source all right but isn't very discriminating about it. But, he is not a trained historian.

Compton writes that the marriage was dynastic. (Compton, p. 487.)

Compton cites the source Mercury uses, says it is from an an "anti-Mormon source," and says that the "extremism of this language is suspect" and "is not credible." (Compton, p. 501.) Compton points out that Lewis also suggested that Helen said that she was being pressured to marry her own father, Heber. Compton nonetheless says the passage is "worth considering." I don't see why, but I offer this for what it is worth.

I really amazed at how undiscriminating you are about your sources, how you are willing to accept the most negative thing said about Mormonism -- no matter where it is from or who says it.

On the lack of value of the term 'anti-Mormon' as a discriminator of reliable or unreliable historical sources, see above.

Surely Mr Crocket must be aware that the tactic works the other way round - Compton is a Mormon, therefore his judgments about the language of the relevant source being 'suspect' or 'not credible' could themselves be dismissed as mere consequences of his personal commitment. (That would be unfair in my view - but if all 'anti-Mormons' are suspect, why not 'pro-Mormons'?). Mr Crocket of course doesn't think of doing that. None the less, when he finds two statements of Compton that he likes, he cites Compton's support, while however for no adduced reason taking exception to the third (that the Lewis passage is "worth considering."), which he appears to find less congenial.

It seems that for Crocket the ultimate criterion of the reliability of a source or of a writer is agreement with his own preconceptions. Those that give him trouble are biased; those that he finds comforting are objective. That is a good way to make sure that you never have to change your mind.

I suppose Crocket is not going to comment on the exposure of the fact that he truncated the quotation from Josephine about Joseph Smith being her father in a way that significantly changed its meaning. Perhaps his silence on this point is following the wise advice of Josephine's mother that such public discussion of a sensitive fact "might cause trouble and rouse unpleasant curiosity." So better to say nothing ...

[_truth dancer]

Hi Bob,

The quote is nowhere on page 53 of my 1986 edition, nor can I find it anywhere in the book (although it might be in there somewhere; I just don't want to read the book all over again to find it).

Yes, as I pointed out earlier the quote is not on page 53 of the 1986 edition but IS on page 53 of the second edition printed just three years later in 1989.

Just curious, did you really not know that the quote was indeed in the more current edition of Mormon Polygamy?

~dancer~

[_Chap]

Since Mr Crocket evidently does not feel that Compton is an 'anti-Mormon' writer, may I, as an eirenic contribution to the discussion, draw attention to a discussion by Compton prompted by attacks from those who (like Crocket) wish to suggest that sexuality is not to be thought of a taking place within those of Joseph Smith's plural marriage that were polyandrous (i.e. the women already had husbands? As you will see, Compton's view is that Josephine's affidavit is "the most explicit evidence for sexuality and offspring in all of Smith's plural marriages, polyandrous or polygynist." He also concludes that "as things stand now, the weight of the evidence suggests that the polyandrous marriages were generally for time, as well as for eternity, and probably included sexuality."

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/ ... vhmk5.html

Sexuality in the Polyandrous Marriages
On p. 84, Anderson and Faulring quote my statement reflecting the union of Zina Huntington Jacobs and Joseph Smith, "Nothing specific is known about sexuality in their marriage, though judging from Smith's other marriages, sexuality was probably included." They respond, "This is an example of many questionable conclusions in this book that are overly broad, nonspecific, or undocumented."[43] My statement is actually very undogmatic and cautious. I straightforwardly state that there is no specific evidence on sexuality in the Zina marriage that I know of. Then I state, judging from other Smith marriages that included sexuality, it was "probably" included, not certainly. I allow the reader to assess the evidence and make his or her own conclusion. However, Anderson and Faulring's sentence, which is quite sweeping and general in its own right, gives the impression that my book largely consists of sexual innuendo based on no evidence. ("questionable conclusions . . . undocumented.")

I'm not sure exactly where Anderson and Faulring are going with their argument here, but it seems to be an attempt to make a case for as little sexuality in Joseph Smith's marriages as possible. As I have mentioned above, sexuality is an accepted aspect of marriages, polygamous or monogamous. I do not find it especially controversial in a polygamous marriage. And while an overemphasis on sex creates a tone of yellow journalism (a failing I have criticized Brodie for), attempts to ignore it completely or underemphasize it are also unhealthy.

In the case of the polyandrous marriages, Anderson and Faulring apparently are going in the direction of proposing that there was no sexuality involved in any of them. Thus, they would have to regard Sylvia Sessions as a conspicuous exception, if they accept the Fisher affidavit, which they apparently do (p. 83). Theoretically, they could argue, out of eleven cases (I strongly doubt that their rejection of Jensen's reliability will hold up, see below), in ten cases there is no evidence for sexuality. In only one case do we have evidence, they might argue, so we can view it as an exception.

There is some ambiguity in the evidence here, so I can understand such an argument. However, in my view, it is unconvincing. A survey of the evidence for the eleven women in question (looking at whether there is an autobiography recording the marriage, a record of the sealing with valid information, and whether the marriage was for time / eternity or for eternity only), will be helpful. I asterisk the wives for whom we have some significant evidence.

Lucinda Harris -- never came west, no autobiographical writings, not part of affidavit drive.

*Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs -- autobiographical writings, but no certain evidence, pro or con, on sexuality. On the issue of time/eternity, the evidence is entirely ambiguous. However, Zina's biographers, Bradley and Woodward, note that while Zina did not explicitly say her marriage with Joseph Smith was consummated, she signed an affidavit saying she was Joseph Smith's wife "in very deed," which they take as evidence that the marriage was consummated.[44] BYU historian Kathyrn Daynes also seems to interpret "in very deed" this way.[45]

Presendia Huntington Buell -- no real autobiographical writings on the subject.

*Sylvia Sessions Lyon – her daughter, Josephine Lyon Fisher, left an important affidavit affirming that she (Josephine) was Smith's child. So this is the most explicit evidence for sexuality and offspring in all of Smith's plural marriages, polyandrous or polygynist.

*Mary Rollins Lightner -- autobiographical writings. No evidence pro or con on sexuality. However, there is evidence that the marriage was for time as well as eternity. Mary said she knew of some of Joseph Smith's children by plural wives.

*Patty Sessions -- no autobiographical writings, but a record of the marriage ceremony in her diary shows that it was for time as well as eternity.

Marinda Johnson Hyde -- no autobiographical writings or other significant evidence.

Elizabeth Davis Durfee -- no autobiographical writings or other significant evidence. Not part of affidavit-seeking drive, as she ended up RLDS.

Sarah Kingsley Cleveland -- did not come west, not part of affidavit drive. No autobiographical writings or other significant evidence on this issue.

Ruth Vose Sayers -- no autobiographical writings or other significant evidence on this issue.

Elvira Cowles Holmes -- no autobiographical writings or other significant evidence on this issue.

Thus, there are only four polyandrous wives who left us significant evidence about the marriage to Smith. Of these cases, one explicitly said she had a child by Smith, and two others affirmed that the marriages were for time as well as eternity. Another strongly hinted in a formal affidavit that the marriage had been consummated.

For Anderson and Faulring to make a convincing case for Sylvia certainly being a complete exception, I would think they would need a woman to say that the general rule was for no sexual relations, and then explain how and why the Sylvia Sessions Lyon exception occurred. Furthermore, it would help their case if they found polyandrous wives who explicitly, unambiguously stated that their marriages were for eternity only, not for time. They may eventually find such documents, but I know of none at this time. Therefore, with four cases providing significant data, two providing evidence of time marriages, and one providing strong evidence of a child, I think the most probable scenario includes sexual relations in the polyandrous marriages, except in the cases of older women.

This is not a "final word" on the topic; "final words" do not exist in history. I hope and expect that further documents relating to these polyandrous marriages will surface in the future, and my views may change accordingly. But as things stand now, the weight of the evidence suggests that the polyandrous marriages were generally for time, as well as for eternity, and probably included sexuality.

Oh, by the way, I wholly concur with Compton's very sensible passage (below the text just quoted) on the use of sources from critics of the CoJCoLDS:

... no evidence is perfect, but, for a responsible historian, all relevant evidence should be looked at and evaluated. Mormons would be enormously narrow and parochial (and solipsistic and even unchristian) if they only accepted evidence and writing that had been written by other Mormons.

In addition, anti-Mormon writing is not all of the same quality. On the one hand you have yellow-journalistic writers producing exposés with little primary research or little or no first hand knowledge of Mormon history. This can be close to fiction, or the worst kind of muck-raking. On the other hand, you may have a good Mormon who was involved in many of the incidents of Mormon history first hand, who becomes disillusioned, leaves the church, and writes his memoirs. These first hand memoirs can still have great value, despite the author's bias, and no responsible Mormon historian would simply ignore this kind of evidence. (And, as I have mentioned, the Mormon who stays within the church will write memoirs that have a positive bias.)

Respected non-Mormon scholar, Lawrence Foster, also makes the distinction between valid, useful, and totally worthless evidence from antagonistic Mormons: see his Religion and Sexuality,[46] in which he asserts that there are two kinds of anti-Mormon evidence: first hand (which must be considered and used) vs. semi-fictional exposes, which are close to useless, except as compendiums of wild gossip.

If one disallowed all authors who had bias, there would be no evidence for Mormon history, or any history. Even statistical evidence can be the result of bias.

I wrote my earlier post before reading Compton's writing above. But the passage in bold closely parallels what I have said myself, as readers can see,

[_guy sajer]

Van Wagoner (who is apparently a "virulent anti Mormon", according to bob) never attributed the statement directly to Helen Mar. In both sources he specified that she "confided this to a close friend".

Moreover, her own words show that she had been misled. Whether or not she would use the stronger word "deceived" or declare she wouldn't have married him had she known the truth can be debated. But the fact that she was, in fact, misled about the nature of the marriage is beyond dispute.

It's typical of defenders of the faith to strain at the gnat while gladly swallowing the camel... and then smacking their lips and asking for more.

I never said that Van Wagoner was a virulent anti-Mormon. You need to follow the thread.

The quote Van Wagoner uses from Helen is from an virulent anti-Mormon expose of the temple ceremony, Catherine Lewis' -- a fact Van Wagoner does not mention. He cites the source all right but isn't very discriminating about it. But, he is not a trained historian.

Compton writes that the marriage was dynastic. (Compton, p. 487.)

Compton cites the source Mercury uses, says it is from an an "anti-Mormon source," and says that the "extremism of this language is suspect" and "is not credible." (Compton, p. 501.) Compton points out that Lewis also suggested that Helen said that she was being pressured to marry her own father, Heber. Compton nonetheless says the passage is "worth considering." I don't see why, but I offer this for what it is worth.

I really amazed at how undiscriminating you are about your sources, how you are willing to accept the most negative thing said about Mormonism -- no matter where it is from or who says it.

And of course Bob evaluates all evidence using the same standard?

Anyone want to take bets?

I think it safe to say that most people, most of the time filter evidence through biased lenses. One big difference between apostates and believers (such as Bob), however, is that apostates were once believers too, and the very fact that they are now apostates demonstrates that they, at least at one point, were willing to consider evidence somewhat objectively. A similar inference about believers (those born into the belief and who continue to cling firmly to it) is less reasonable by and large.

I think that Bob's general point is correct: credibility IS important. In this light, therefore, I propose for Bob, and other apologists, the following:

Someone claims to have experienced one of the single most dramatic, important events in human history--a personal visit from God and Jesus.

This person over the years, however, tells markedly different versions of this event to different audiences, including critically important details about who precisely appeared to him in the vision.

This person in his memoirs (or official version of the event) written years after the fact claims that immediately or very soon after the event presumably occurred related the event to a local minister, and the memoir is quite specific in describing precisely what transpired and who visited him. In recounting this event, the person claims that he is telling the truth, and that he could not deny the truth of what happened to him, lest he come under condemnation of God.

This, however, is the first time he has told this particular version of the event which is at direct odds with how he actually described the event over the years to other people.

We also know that this person was an admitted swindler who claims to have magical powers to find buried treasure for which he charged unwitting customers.

We also know that this person was a proven liar in that for years he denied involvement in a practice in which he was heavily involved.

We also know that this person ordered the destruction of a printing press that published evidence that he was engaged in the practice that he denied participating in.


Now, I ask Bob and other apologists in all honesty, does not the above raise serious questions about Joseph Smith's credibility?

[_rcrocket]

Guy Sajer writes:

And of course Bob evaluates all evidence using the same standard?

Anyone want to take bets?

I try to follow the standard historical method. I do not accept in an indiscriminate fashion suspect sources -- whether they be pro-Mormon or not. So, don't dismiss my points about Helen Whitney solely upon what you think I might do in the future. That seems to be pretty illogical. I don't do that do you.

But, really, this thread is about Helen Whitney. The points I've made are these:

1. The quote upon which Van Wagoner relies is from one of the most strident anti-Mormon books of the day. Statements made by critics of a despised religion or belief system are to be suspect.

2. Helen's own writings, and they are extensive for her day and position, don't say anything of the sort.

On the basis of these two points, I think a reasoned student of history might say that the quote is not credible, as does Compton say.

Guy Sajer writes, after talking about the First Vision:

Now, I ask Bob and other apologists in all honesty, does not the above raise serious questions about Joseph Smith's credibility?

I refuse to be drawn into completely different topics. Not that I don't want to, but I don't have the time. I am here to dispense with the canard of the Van Wagoner reference to Lewis to Whitney.

Truth Dancer writes:

Just curious, did you really not know that the quote was indeed in the more current edition of Mormon Polygamy?

I am curious. When a favorite author of yours publishes multiple editions of a work, do you go out and by all of his or her editions? Van Wagoner is a hack and not a favorite of mine; I am not likely to buy his later edition. But, I only had the first edition at my disposal. Why do you want to bust my cojones on this one? I conceded that Van Wagoner had used the source in another work and I cited to that work.

Chap writes:

Since Mr Crocket evidently does not feel that Compton is an 'anti-Mormon' writer, may I, as an eirenic contribution to the discussion, draw attention to a discussion by Compton prompted by attacks from those who (like Crocket) wish to suggest that sexuality is not to be thought of a taking place within those of Joseph Smith's plural marriage that were polyandrous (I.e. the women already had husbands? As you will see, Compton's view is that Josephine's affidavit is "the most explicit evidence for sexuality and offspring in all of Smith's plural marriages, polyandrous or polygynist." He also concludes that "as things stand now, the weight of the evidence suggests that the polyandrous marriages were generally for time, as well as for eternity, and probably included sexuality."

This thread is about Helen Whitney, as I recall. But, your post certainly demonstrates substantial naïveté about the historical method. Just because I quote from Compton on one source does not mean I must accept everything he has to say. I don't. Prescott cites often and routinely from Spanish sources of which he is critical. Durant is often critical of his sources. It is possible to mine truths from the dung heap and, often the truth is often stronger when it is sitting amongst the turds.

I have run to ground several of Compton's claims and I don't agree with some of them. I disagree with him on Josephine Lyon because I don't think he has adequately considered the alternative. I can read the sources as easily as can he. Compton has come under considerable criticism for the way he accepts some evidence and not others.

Chap says:

Mr Crocket of course doesn't think of doing that. None the less, when he finds two statements of Compton that he likes, he cites Compton's support, while however for no adduced reason taking exception to the third (that the Lewis passage is "worth considering."), which he appears to find less congenial.

This is pretty funny. Lewis is very well known among historians. I wish I had her book; I'd post some excerpts. I'll see if I can locate it. But, once again, Mr. Chap has about a college sophomore's understanding of the historical method -- in for a penny in for a pound on a source you cite. Too bad it doesn't work that way. If I were Kevin Graham I could place some good drop kicks at this point. But, I try to be polite.

Chap writes:

I suppose Crocket is not going to comment on the exposure of the fact that he truncated the quotation from Josephine about Joseph Smith being her father in a way that significantly changed its meaning. Perhaps his silence on this point is following the wise advice of Josephine's mother that such public discussion of a sensitive fact "might cause trouble and rouse unpleasant curiosity." So better to say nothing ...

This thread is about Helen Whitney. I truncated nothing and I don't know what you are talking about. On the Josephine quote from which I cited, there was no more sentence beyond the period to which I quoted to establish Beastie's atrocity.[/quote]

[_the road to hana]

Why do you want to bust my cojones on this one?

I expect it had something to do with your trying to bust other people's cojones over similar issues.

Karma, and all that.

Bob, what do you think is the most compelling argument to be made that Joseph Smith did indeed have sexual relations with any or all of his plural wives who were already married to other men? Can you make a case for it?

[_guy sajer]

Guy Sajer writes:

And of course Bob evaluates all evidence using the same standard?

Anyone want to take bets?

I try to follow the standard historical method. I do not accept in an indiscriminate fashion suspect sources -- whether they be pro-Mormon or not. So, don't dismiss my points about Helen Whitney solely upon what you think I might do in the future. That seems to be pretty illogical. I don't do that do you.

My distinct impression Bob after reading literally hundreds of your posts is that you are not as indiscriminate in assessing evidence as you suppose. Perhaps in you 'scholarly' work you are more indiscriminate, but I see little evidence of objectivity, or even attempt at objectivity, in how you personally assess evidence nor that you are willing to engage in the type of critical self introspection that such objectivity requires.

I'm not taking sides in the Helen Whitney debate. I'm just noting that I do not find you as rigorously objective as you demand others must be.

I'd be happy to hear later your thoughts on why you think the pattern of behavior demonstrated by Joseph Smith during his career does not reasonably call into question his credibility viz the First Vision and the rest of his claims.

[_rcrocket]

Why do you want to bust my cojones on this one?

I expect it had something to do with your trying to bust other people's cojones over similar issues.

Karma, and all that.

"Similar issues?" There has been no similar issue.

Bob, what do you think is the most compelling argument to be made that Joseph Smith did indeed have sexual relations with any or all of his plural wives who were already married to other men? Can you make a case for it?

This thread is about Helen Whitney. The prior thread was about Josephine Lyon. I responded.

I have not seen any evidence that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with women married civilly to other men who were at the same time cohabiting with those other men. The closest paradigm is Henry -- but even there the evidence is very weak. I must ask myself why the evidence is so weak with these polyandrous wives but rather strong for non-polyandrous wives (Eliza Snow, for example). I mean, why is it that we have rather strong admissions from the Eliza Snow category of wives but not from the Zina category of wives?

One answer I suppose is that the Zina category of wives were not willing to come out an admit to adultery, but the Eliza category of wives were willing to come out and admit to fornication? To me, evidence lacking is suggestive of no evidence at all.

[_Chap]

Chap writes:

I suppose Crocket is not going to comment on the exposure of the fact that he truncated the quotation from Josephine about Joseph Smith being her father in a way that significantly changed its meaning. Perhaps his silence on this point is following the wise advice of Josephine's mother that such public discussion of a sensitive fact "might cause trouble and rouse unpleasant curiosity." So better to say nothing ...

This thread is about Helen Whitney. I truncated nothing and I don't know what you are talking about. On the Josephine quote from which I cited, there was no more sentence beyond the period to which I quoted to establish Beastie's atrocity.

See this:

Just prior to my mothers death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days on earth were about numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from em and from all others but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church... In conclusion mother told me not to make her statement to me too public, as it might cause trouble and rouse unpleasant curiosity.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... &start=315

(I bolded the part bob left out)

Perhaps you understand now?