Talk:Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Title

I think perhaps the title of the article should be changed to something more neutral since not everybody believes there were plural wives. "Alleged plural wives of Joseph Smith, Jr." doesn't sound like a very good title to me either, perhaps something more along the lines of "Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy"? --Nerd42 14:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have something here. I think the title you selected is probably a good one. +1 Wadsworth 15:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No reasonable person doubts that Joseph Smith took plural wives. We don't entitle our articles based on the beliefs of conspiracy theorists. - Cole Slaw 15:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That depends on one's definition of a "reasonable" person. Based on that statement alone I am given the impression that you have a quite subjective definition of what a reasonable person is. (i.e. one who agrees with you) --Nerd42 16:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You're free to fantasize about what the definition of a reasonable person is, but a person who formulates his beliefs by ignoring facts isn't a reasonable person. - Cole Slaw 19:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What is a fact? Who determines which interpretation of history gets to be called "fact" and which doesn't? Furthermore, see my comment below on faith vs. evidence --Nerd42 15:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point too. It seems to me that the article isn't really about the wives (though it does list them). It's about Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy. I think the title should be changed as nerd42 suggested. Wadsworth 17:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I would probably disagree with changing the title of this article if alleged is included in the new title. I can understand how some might "believe" that Joseph did not have plural wives, but I have a difficult time dealing with historical fact. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Storm, read what nerd42 wrote again. :) The title with "alleged" he cited as an example of a lame title. The one I like is "Joseph Smith Jr and Polygamy". Wadsworth 17:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, your proposed title works for me and I prefer it to the current title. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that some "reasonable people" do doubt that Smith took plural wives - but the evidence is overwhelmingly against them. I also think careful terminology can be crafted. I also think that a page move would be good. I can take care of moving it if everyone be in agreement? To Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy. There we can explain polygyny, polyandry and polygamy differences in what historical documents show, and who and why some discount it. -Visorstuff 18:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

One definition of "reasonable people" would be "people who base their beliefs on evidence". One definition of "unreasonable people" would be "people who hold beliefs contradicted by overwhelming evidence". A page move such as that envisioned will necessitate the addition of that overwhelming evidence to the article. If that is what you want to do, that would be fine. I myself think it would make the article overly long and overly contentious. - Cole Slaw 09:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The same reasoning can be applied to whether or not there is historical evidence that Jesus even lived or not. The facts are against it, but most of the world still believes. Because this is a matter of faith, "reasonable people" don't need "facts" in order to believe. Don't get me wrong, I think the evidence is there, but others do not. -Visorstuff 13:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course they're not at all the same! Belief despite an absence of evidence is not at all the same as withholding belief despite a plethora of evidence. This is not a matter of faith; it's a matter of fact. - Cole Slaw 14:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the name change for the reasons stated. If necessary, we can have a vote. I think that as a matter of principle, we should have six "for" votes with at least two-thirds for it. I think that this should be easy to achieve since we've already got three votes for the move. Val42 05:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest anyone who wants to argue faith versus evidence needs to first consider the fact that both sides have evidence (testimony of the alleged wives versus testimony of Joseph Smith, Jr. himself, Emma Hale, Joseph Smith III and others) and that it is basically one group's word against another's. Then they ought to review Wikipedia policy (particularly NPOV policy) and explain where and how my proposal is not in accordance with it. --Nerd42 16:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I am intrigued by this conversation. This is an excellent example of how a previous faith commitment may result in a reading of evidence that no one outside the faith community finds plausible. No professional historian that I have ever encountered, held to the rigors of historical methodology and plausibility, has concluded that Joseph Smith, Jr. was innocent of plural marriage. In an early twentieth century essay about methodology in the social sciences, Max Weber famously wrote that there is nothing wrong with having an interest (i.e. early LDS history); a problem, though, arises when one has a clear agenda (i.e. Joseph Smith could not have committed polygamy, therefore all evidence to the contrary will be ignored).

I think there should be more secondary sources that talk about plural marriage. For instance, see Lawrence Foster's excellent account, Religion and Sexuality: The Shakers, the Mormons, and the Oneida Community (Oxford University Pres, 1981), pp. 123-180. Foster is hardly an LDS scholar; he is simply an outside scholar. He also rather convincingly takes apart "the traditional RLDS view" without having any investment in affirming Brigham Young or Joseph Smith III. In addition, Foster does something that sectarian histories never do; he places Smith's innovations in a meaningful historical context (experiments with family organization and sexuality in antebellum America). All of us want a rigorous explanation of why World War I occurred through explaining a context (i.e. the rise of imperialistic nationalism in the late nineteenth century). Why do we not also want such rigor with religious subjects?

If you have not at least read the secondary sources on a subject, you really do not have the ability to convincingly argue for or against a position. Most Restorationists (traditional RLDS who meet separately from the Community of Christ) have never read the secondary literature on polygamy. (I know; I grew up in the community.) This is also a major weakness of Richard Price's work. He never takes on other historians or has peer-review by historians of his own work. History done in isolation from other scholars (sectarian isolation) is not history; it is folk history or "tribal history" (meaning no one but the "tribe" will ever affirm it). Whatever the worth of folk history, professional history has a large critical community for a reason--it helps to keep your agendas in check! While all historians know this is impossible in practice, they at least embrace the idea of rigorous peer-review not in spite of the impossibility of "objectivity" but precisely because of its impossibility. Just because we can never get a fully sanitized environment does not mean you don't wash your hands before operating!

Now, as to sources for Smith's involvement in plural marriage, one must take into account sources like the Nauvoo Expositor and William Law's diary. Law's diary shows the anguished faith of one who feels betrayed by Smith after the latter proposes marriage to his wife. Law's diary is hardly a complimentary source for LDS historians seeking to promote Smith's moral integrity. Price's standard line of sources being changed in the LDS archives does not work for Law's diary, too, since it has been in a private collection. The Nauvoo Expositor contains lines from Smith's polygamy revelation that match the current LDS 132 too well to be mere happenstance. This is a point that the RLDS historian, Charles Davies, in 1962 recognized. Davies was not a professional historian; he was an old-time "seventy" who at the twilight of his life was trying to deal with the sources he found in the RLDS archives that indicated Smith's involvement in polygamy. Davies had heart problems and left this issue aside (though he wrote a very apologetic Saints Herald article that acknowledged the Expositor problem). Dick Howard, the first professionally trained RLDS historian, was left to take on the task of making sense of the situation. He did so with great caution and pastoral concern.

For RLDS sources, one must take into account the testimony of William Marks, Isaac Sheen, and Zenos Gurley, Sr., who all believed that Joseph Smith, Jr., was involved in polygamy. Marks was in the inner-circle in Nauvoo, too. Gurley and Sheen lived in Nauvoo. Almost without exception, RLDS members who were in Nauvoo affirmed that Smith was involved in polygamy. Emma Smith's denial needs to be seen in the light of her own real need to affirm to her children the morality of their father. Second generation RLDS members (Joseph Smith III's generation), not the original adult members, were the ones who charted a course toward denying polygamy.

In the early twentieth century, RLDS apostles hotly debated Smith's involvement in polygamy. RLDS Apostle Hansen, a traditional Book of Mormon believing member, was extremely worried that the position the church had taken was untenable in light of new evidence. Israel A. Smith knew of this evidence but would not permit himself to consider other options. Bob Moore, a fundamentalist RLDS member, has documented this conversation well in his otherwise bizarre work, The Road to Liberation. (Moore is a conspiracy theorist in the rest of his work, linking RLDS changes to a grand Jesuit conspiracy, which, incidentally, Moore believes was also responsible for the assassination of Lincoln. His source, obviously, must be used with great caution.)

Finally, a word of caution about this whole dispute. The number of people on the planet who dispute Smith's involvement in polygamy number perhaps 10,000 (all fundamentalist RLDS). The real issue at stake for them is about the present. Do you embrace a progressive, "liberated" world, or do you have reservations about it? From one sociological perspective, the issue of polygamy and Joseph Smith is more symbol than substance. It is a boundary-maintenance issue. In the schismatic RLDS and Community of Christ dispute, how one affirms Smith's involvement in polygamy is seen as a test for how one falls into the "liberal and conservative" camps that came to dominate American churches in the late twentieth century. Other churches have other issues. As one who truly loves fundamentalist RLDS (they are my family), I sincerely wish that this issue could be seen in terms of the past and not in the politically charged present.

Unsigned comments above by anon 66.219.150.9

Move to Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy

The following is a vote to determine if the title of the article should remain the same or be changed to: Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy

1. Agree to the page move. -Visorstuff 13:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps before there's a "vote" you should specify the move you are voting for or against? Several have been proposed. - Cole Slaw 14:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Agree --Nerd42 16:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Agree Wadsworth 19:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

4. Agree Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Agree Val42 04:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe we need one more vote??? -Visorstuff 22:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

6. Sounds fair enough to me. Alai 18:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

wait a minute here, why is there the comma after Smith and before Jr? --Nerd42 18:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is proper usage. See Suffix (name)#Social. Val42 01:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)