George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy (new book)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Two hatchets are better than one?

Exactly.

For a vicious, unethical Mopologist hack such as myself, there can never be too many hatchets.

[_Mercury]

The next FARMS Review, at press, features two reviews of this book.

Just curious danny, do you have the bibliography?

[_Mercury]

Two hatchets are better than one?

Exactly.

For a vicious, unethical Mopologist hack such as myself, there can never be too many hatchets.

Sarcasm is a window into the soul.

Or in your case dannyboy, the cavity where it used to be.

[_Maxrep]

In my extended family we have records from valiant, dedicated LDS women who describe the horror that was/is polygamy.
~td~

Do you have a link to some journal descriptions of early polygamy? Not neccessarily your relatives :). I have heard that there was a trend to remove anything but faith promoting entries from past journal material, but don't know what type of weight to give tthose claims. Something about a group called the, "Daughters of Zion". Maybe that was just in reference to pioneer journals.

[_Dwight Frye]

Just curious, has there been a book about Mormon polygamy that has been reviewed positively by FARMS/MI?

[_Daniel Peterson]

So far as I recall, we've only reviewed one book on Mormon polygamy, Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness.

We published two reviews of it, one by Richard Lloyd Anderson and Scott Faulring and one by Danel Bachman. The reviews were mixed.

[_harmony]

Do you have a link to some journal descriptions of early polygamy? Not neccessarily your relatives :). I have heard that there was a trend to remove anything but faith promoting entries from past journal material, but don't know what type of weight to give tthose claims. Something about a group called the, "Daughters of Zion". Maybe that was just in reference to pioneer journals.

That would be Daughters of the Utah Pioneers. (Daughters of the American Revolution need not apply).

[_CaliforniaKid]

Is he related to Professor Robinson?

I have speculated before that Ipso Facto is Will Schryver. I still think that's likely.

[_Nevo]

Apparently the hard times at Signature Books mean that nobody bothers to fact-check anymore. I just found a real doozy in Smith's new polygamy book.

According to Smith, "four days after Josephine [Lyon] was born, which was recorded coincidentally as two years to the day after the date ascribed to Sylvia's marriage to Joseph, Patty Sessions reported that 'Brother Joseph was at her [Sylvia's] house' and that 'Mr. Lyons, Sylvia's husband, lent him five hundred dollars.' Patty described other visits and that after Josephine's birth, Joseph 'visited at her [Sylvia's] house almost daily.'"

The source for this is given as "Patty Sessions," Woman's Exponent 13 (Nov. 15, 1884): 95. See George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: "But We Called It Celestial Marriage" (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2008), 101-102.

When I consulted Smith's source, I found that none of what he said was true. Windsor Lyon lent Joseph $500 on February 12, 1843. Josephine Lyon was born on February 8, 1844. And Joseph wasn't at Sylvia's house "almost daily" after Josephine's birth. Rather, the article states: "On the 13th [December 1842] she [Patty Sessions] was very sick, the Prophet came and laid hands on her and she was healed. From that time she speaks of Joseph having visited at her house almost daily." Todd Compton, a much more careful historian, get the story right (see In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997], 181.)

Smith not only gets the dates wrong (how does one confuse December 1842 with February 1844?), but also mixes up Sylvia Sessions Lyon with her mother Patty. This is abysmal historical reporting.

[_cinepro]

Apparently the hard times at Signature Books mean that nobody bothers to fact-check anymore. I just found a real doozy in Smith's new polygamy book.

Interesting catch. I'd like to hear G. Smith's explanation if this is brought to his attention... As I noted earlier, Smith's book has many references to Compton's, so it's surprising he would get something wrong that Compton had gotten right.