Comments on: What Happened in Nauvoo, Part 3: Polygamy

By: Cameron Nielsen

Cameron Nielsen — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:23:56 +0000

@18: In my experience the New York Times’ non-editorial pieces come in a wide variety of objectivity levels, from slightly conservative to extremely liberal. There is definite bias there, although I would hardly say it contains “the dumbest things” that I read.

By: Bill of Wasilla

Bill of Wasilla — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:47:52 +0000

Dave,

I suspect that what you mean by this comment,

“The dumbest things I read are in the New York Times”

if you refer to their news reporting, is that the New York Times reports facts and information that you would prefer not to know and that make you uncomfortable.

If you refer to their commentary, then I suspect that it means that opinions are expressed on their editorial pages that you disagree with.

Of course, opinions are also expressed there that you do agree with, because they manage to get the whole political spectrum in there.

By: Nate W.

Nate W. — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:10:00 +0000

Thanks a bunch, Jonathan.

By: Jonathan Green

Jonathan Green — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:35:59 +0000

Nate, did you try mail to “firstname@timesandseasons.org”? That should work.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:41:11 +0000

Dave,

I don’t think “enjoy” is the right word. :)

By: Nate W.

Nate W. — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:49:37 +0000

Would Matt or Kaimi delete this and e-mail me? You all don’t have any contact information anyplace on the site…

By: mjp

mjp — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:29:20 +0000

The Nauvoo Expositor’s first and only issue published news of Joseph’s plural marraiges. In the City Council’s discussions of the need to “abate” the press, did Joseph continue to deny marriage or did he just let others, who didn’t know any better, carry the arguments.

Since the destruction of the Expositor (becayse of its announcement of Joseph’s plural marriages) was such a big issue, especially after Joseph’s death and in light of the succession discussions, there must have been widespread speculation. It seems hard to believe so many faithful Nauvoo Mormons didn’t know (or at least suspect) what was going on.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:11:41 +0000

Dan, the accounts of angelic directives are recollections recorded many years after by third parties, not by Joseph. Generally those types of sources (without other evidence) are not deemed sufficient to establish the events they are recounting. So I don’t think we really know what moved Joseph to make the decisions he did.

I’m not sure that “co-conspirators” is the right term; there were a few people he had discussions with (as noted) as early as 1831.

The public, in the broad sense, became aware of the Mormon practice of polygamy in 1852. Negative stories circulated by Nauvoo dissenters in 1843 and 1844 did generate opposition to the Mormons and they did get kicked out of Illinois, but there were other forces at work. My impression is that if there had been no polygamy in Nauvoo, there would still have been opposition to the Mormons.

Dan, I think you’d really enjoy Van Wagoner’s Mormon Polygamy: A History (Signature, 1989).

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:41:29 +0000

Dave,

The dumbest things I read are in the New York Times.

Then you must not read much beyond the New York Times. :)

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:40:37 +0000

Why did Joseph feel the need to keep polygamy a secret? Has any author/biographer attempted to answer that question?

“According to a number of recollections, Joseph Smith postponed his first involvement in plural marriage until commanded to do so by an angel” (p. 345).

Is there any record of when an angel told him it was time to begin practicing polygamy? Is there any revelation on this? If this was truly a secret thing, how could there be a “number of recollections?” Who did he discuss this with? Who were the co-conspirators during the 1830s?

When did the public (Mormon and non-Mormon) first know about polygamy, and if before leaving Illinois, did it have anything to do with Mormons being kicked out of the state?