Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Nauvoo Polygamy/Chapter 6

Chapter 5

A FAIR Analysis of: Criticism of Mormonism/Books A work by author: George D. Smith

Chapter 7

__NOLOC__

Page	Claim	Response	Author's sources
356	"Efforts to suppress the story of Nauvoo until the 1852 announcement [of polygamy in Utah] restricted the breadth and depth of the records that were kept.	Hiding history  Internal contradiction: G.D. Smith claims elsewhere that the History of the Church had material expurgated; we now learn that most of this material was not in the primary documents (such as Joseph's journals) because of secrecy concerns. GLS FARMS paper	No source provided.
356	After 1890 the church tried to "phase out a practice the prophet had mandated as essential to salvation."	Polygamy_a_requirement_for_exaltation Brigham Young: is polygamy essential to salvation? G.D. Smith ignores the nuances of LDS thought on this, both before and after the Manifesto.	No source provided.
356	"Official accounts" of plural marriage have been "redacted."	Hiding history	GLS FARMS paper
364-365	Joseph and Brigham admitted that the practice of polygamy meant they were "free to go beyond the normal 'bounds'" and "the normal rules governing social interaction had not applied to" Joseph.	G.D. Smith misconstrues and misrepresents the statements cited. GLS FARMS paper Maybe wiki? Bounds and plural marriage	Brigham Young Manuscript History, Feb 16, 1849, LDS Archives.
366	"Elizabeth [Whitney] was arranging conjugal visits between her daughter, Sarah Ann, and [Joseph]…."	Sarah Whitney again Chapter 2
392	G.D. Smith has a subsection in "How Plural Marriage Worked," entitled "Female subordination."	G.D. Smith does nothing to compare the 19th-century LDS practice of marriage with Victorian marriage in general. Virtually without exception, all 19th-century marriage had strong elements of "female subordination." The single page he addresses to this topic serves only to recount attitudes in nineteenth-century leaders that sound chauvinist and ill-informed. Smith again preys on his readers' presentism. They would probably be as troubled—if they knew of it—by the female subordination in 19th century American monogamy.) As one scholar noted: "Woman's degradation [in nineteenth century America] was a fact. For gentile women the only recourse was to burst the bonds of slavery, but for Eliza [Snow] and her sisters there was a different path…. Latter-day Saint women did not admit that just any man could guide and direct woman. It was not the mere fact of masculinity; it was the righteous exercise of priesthood which gave a man wisdom and power that was from God and thus qualified him as woman's leader and protector…." In fact, opportunities for women were perhaps greatest in Utah: Utah's women were the first in the nation to exercise the right of suffrage in voting for city, county, and territorial officers. Utah women were among the first to serve as jurors, mayors, and state legislators. Utah women played a prominent role in the livestock industry, in communications, and in the creation of literary symbols. In the last half of the nineteenth century, Utah probably possessed the largest number of midwives and women doctors in the United States. Utah women founded the first "permanent" magazine for women west of the Mississippi River, pioneered the operation of telegraph offices, and led out in the efforts to improve the social and economic status of the Indians."
400	"Joseph Lee Robinson put it bluntly: 'There are some on this stand that would cut my throat or take my hearts blood,' he said, if he told them what God had revealed to him.	The statement comes from the Joseph Robinson journal, but the statement is not from Robinson—it is from Joseph Smith. G.D. Smith recognized this in an earlier article. SOURCE ERROR	Robinson Journal, 24, Utah State Historical Society Library.
408	"Joseph had already fled three states under pressure that arose, in part, from suspicious relationships with young women."	Fanny Alger certainly caused problems in Ohio. There is no good evidence, however, that Joseph had "woman problems" in New York or Missouri.	No source provided.
408	Joseph was "arrested for violating freedom of the press."	This is presentism, and highly anachronistic—again, likely intended to bias a modern audience against someone who would threaten a cherished modern conception of liberty. As two legal scholars note: "However, in 1844, freedom of the press did not have the broad meaning we attach to it today. Early constitutional guarantees of a free press were meant only to prevent prior restraints on publications in the form of licensing and censorship. They provided no protection to those who abused their freedom by publishing irresponsible and defamatory statements and, in fact, the Illinois Constitution specifically provided that editors should be "responsible for the abuse of that liberty." "The legal authority the city council relied on for its action—Black-stone's Commentaries-supported this view. Liberty of the press, it said, consisted only "in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published" (Blackstone 2:113). At the time of the Expositor incident, the Illinois Supreme Court had not interpreted its state constitutional guarantee, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in construing that state's constitutional provision (upon which the Illinois provision was based), explained the scope of the guarantee as follows: "Publish as you please in the first instance without control; but you are answerable both to the community and the individual, if you proceed to unwarrantable lengths .... The common weal is not interested in such a communication except to suppress it" (Respublica v. Dennie, Yeates 4:267, 269-70; italics added). Thus, the law of the day supported the council in taking some action against the Expositor's publishers." Joseph was arrested on a charge of riot for the destruction of the Expositor, not a freedom of the press issue. He posted bail for this charge, and was rearrested on the capital charge of treason. Smith ignores all the scholarship on this issue, save for a dismissive (and inadequate) footnote several pages later. [See also p. 435.]	No source provided.