Fabulous News!

[_Brackite]

Hello,

I have already read most of the FARMS Review of George D. Smith's Book Titled, 'Nauvoo Polygamy: ". . . but we called it celestial marriage,"' Reviewed by Gregory L. Smith. Here is an interesting Paragraph from that Review:

"There is no reason to doubt," G. D. Smith tells us, "that [Joseph's] marriages involved sexual relations in most instances" (p. 227). There is, in fact, relatively little evidence with which to judge, which means that some doubt is prudent. There is good evidence of a conjugal relationship with Almira Johnson, Melissa Lott, Emily Partridge, and Eliza R. Snow. It is also reasonable to include Eliza Partridge, Maria Lawrence, and Sarah Lawrence. The evidence for their inclusion is persuasive, though they are not named specifically. There is late, hostile evidence of intimacy with Fanny Alger, and most intriguingly there is some evidence of both a physical relationship and a child with Sylvia Sessions Lyon.[185] This is only nine marriages out of Todd Compton's list of thirty-three—or G. D. Smith's list of thirty-eight—plural marriages.

And Here is Footnote # 185:

[185] G. D. Smith ignores Brian C. Hales, "The Joseph Smith–Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?" Mormon Historical Studies 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57, which argues that Sylvia considered herself divorced prior to marrying Joseph polygamously, contrary to evidence misread by Compton. There is no evidence for sexuality in any other polyandrous marriage. I have outlined my reasons for believing that there are no other viable candidates for potential polygamous children (save Josephine Lyon) in Gregory L. Smith, "Children from Joseph's Plural Marriages?" draft chapter in The Principle: A history of LDS plural marriage (2007); available online at http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_a ... ok_chapter (accessed 2 December 2008).

This is the first time that I read, that Sylvia Sessions Lyon considered herself divorced from her husband Windsor Lyon when she Polygamously married Joseph Smith. I do definitely believe that Josephine Rosetta Lyon (Fisher) was indeed the biological daughter of Joseph Smith.

[_cinepro]

Incidentally, I'm very pleased to note that Nevo, whose learning and judgment I respect and who was previously skeptical about the prospect of a review by Gregory Smith of George D. Smith's book on Nauvoo Polygamy, has now, over on the better, more substantive discussion board, praised it as "superb" and termed it something that everybody concerned with the subject should read.

Here's a link to it:

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/revie ... m=2&id=721

Since I am no longer welcome at the "better, more substantive board" (the first part of the sentence having no correlation to the latter, I insist), I'll have to take your word for Nevo's reaction.

I'm short on time, but having read the first 1/3 or the review, I must say that while the content looks good, the tone is unnervingly (and unnecessarily?) juvenile. It would be refreshing to read a FARMS book review where I couldn't tell the attitude with which the reviewer approached the book from the outset.

(And in discussing the Sarah Ann Whitney letter, G. Smith does note that the parents were invited along. That isn't the critical part for those interested in the nature of the visit. The critical part would be why Emma had to be absent.)

[_Daniel Peterson]

De gustibus non est disputandum.

But, of course, different writers -- for the Review as everywhere else -- have different tones.

As a very laissez-faire editor, I want them to retain their distinctive tones. I don't want authorial voices to be homogenized.

Gregory Smith's tone isn't that of Duane Boyce, which isn't that of William Mackinnon, which isn't that of Shirley Ricks, which isn't that of Robert Briggs, which isn't that of Bruce Hafen, which isn't that of Brant Gardner, which isn't that of Louis Midgley. (To speak only of FARMS Review 20/2.)

[_Runtu]

Since I am no longer welcome at the "better, more substantive board" (the first part of the sentence having no correlation to the latter, I insist), I'll have to take your word for Nevo's reaction.

You got banned again? What happened this time?

[_John Larsen]

Since I am no longer welcome at the "better, more substantive board" (the first part of the sentence having no correlation to the latter, I insist), I'll have to take your word for Nevo's reaction.

You got banned again? What happened this time?

Also, did the Dude get banned again? They were passing around warnings last week and I got warned, but I didn't deserve it, of course.

[_harmony]

...the better, more substantive discussion board...

There's no accounting for taste.

[_CaliforniaKid]

De gustibus non est disputandum.

But, of course, different writers -- for the Review as everywhere else -- have different tones.

As a very laissez-faire editor, I want them to retain their distinctive tones. I don't want authorial voices to be homogenized.

Gregory Smith's tone isn't that of Duane Boyce, which isn't that of William Mackinnon, which isn't that of Shirley Ricks, which isn't that of Robert Briggs, which isn't that of Bruce Hafen, which isn't that of Brant Gardner, which isn't that of Louis Midgley. (To speak only of FARMS Review 20/2.)

Authors tailor their work to editorial expectations, of which precedent is the best indicator. Whether you realize it or not, homogenization of authorial voices inevitably occurs to some degree: that's the nature of the beast. When you publish a large enough number of essays with a negative tone that that's what the journal becomes known for, authors will tend to conform to that negative precedent. In other words, by allowing Midgley and others of his demeanor to write in their natural "voices", you are in fact encouraging other authors who write for you to adopt the same demeanor. It would be more constructive, I think, to rein in some of your more hostile authors. Frankly, I don't read the Review very often because I have only occasionally found it to be tasteful and constructive. That's not to say that you haven't published some excellent work; you have and do. But I don't like the feeling that I have to waste my time wading through fields of chaff to get to the wheat.

But that's just my vicious, biased, hateful perspective, so take it with a grain of salt.

Best,

-Chris

[_Daniel Peterson]

Authors tailor their work to editorial expectations, of which precedent is the best indicator. Whether you realize it or not, homogenization of authorial voices inevitably occurs to some degree: that's the nature of the beast. When you publish a large enough number of essays with a negative tone that that's what the journal becomes known for, authors will tend to conform to that negative precedent. In other words, by allowing Midgley and others of his demeanor to write in their natural "voices", you are in fact encouraging other authors who write for you to adopt the same demeanor. It would be more constructive, I think, to rein in some of your more hostile authors. Frankly, I don't read the Review very often because I have only occasionally found it to be tasteful and constructive. That's not to say that you haven't published some excellent work; you have and do. But I don't like the feeling that I have to waste my time wading through fields of chaff to get to the wheat.

But that's just my vicious, biased, hateful perspective, so take it with a grain of salt.

As I say, there's no disputing about taste.

I'm not alone in thinking that the Review publishes some of the best writing in Mormondom, and its tone is far less polemical than that of The Nation or National Review or The American Spectator, or any of a very large number of other journals of opinion. I'd far rather be thought controversial than boring.

But Jim Allen's voice in the Review is still palpably different than Bill Hamblin's, which is different from Richard Bushman's, which differs from Duane Boyce's, which is different from Davis Bitton's, which differs from Michael Jibson's, which is different from Cherry Silver's, which is different from Lou Midgley's, which is different from John Sorenson's, which is different from Jack Welch's, which differs from John Butler's, which is different from Kevin Barney's, which is different from Terryl Givens's, which differs from David Wright's, which is different from Camille Williams's, which is different from Dan Graham's, which is different from David Bokovoy, which differs from David McClellan's, which is different from Mike Heiser's, which is different from Bruce Hafen's, which is different from Shirley Ricks's, which is different from Blake Ostler's, which differs from Lavina Fielding Anderson's, which is different from Mark Ashurst-McGee's, which is different from David Paulsen's, and so on and so forth. There is, simply, no single uniform tone to the Review. That's a myth.

The latest issue of the FARMS Review is on line at

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=20&num=2

Good stuff.

[_Gadianton]

And I'm pleased to announce that my review of Boyce's review is now up, as promised!

[_John Larsen]

De gustibus non est disputandum.

But, of course, different writers -- for the Review as everywhere else -- have different tones.

As a very laissez-faire editor, I want them to retain their distinctive tones. I don't want authorial voices to be homogenized.

Gregory Smith's tone isn't that of Duane Boyce, which isn't that of William Mackinnon, which isn't that of Shirley Ricks, which isn't that of Robert Briggs, which isn't that of Bruce Hafen, which isn't that of Brant Gardner, which isn't that of Louis Midgley. (To speak only of FARMS Review 20/2.)

Ah, but FARMS review does have a distinctive tone. One which, I might add, many LDS scholars also find distasteful.