Is Todd Compton actually advocating that we honor historical polygamists and any aspect of JS's history? He seems to indicate that in the plural wives of JS story on Huffpost:

"Compton also hopes that Mormons will begin to honor these women as heroes -- in church museums, church magazines and reports by conservative scholars.

“If Joseph Smith married these women, they are part of his life. They shouldn’t just be ignored because they are plural wives,” Compton told HuffPost. “We should honor that polygamous background in our history and in Joseph Smith’s history.”


I cannot imagine how anyone could make a study of Smith's polygamy and suggest that any aspect of it should be honored. Nothing honorable about it, Todd. People who read your quotation may not be so keen on reading your book. Not that everything he says should be a commercial for his work, but he lost a lot of respect from me for saying crap like this.

personal opinion: possibly an unhealthy sexual interest motives him

That is so inappropriate, I know.

I really don't know what I'm talking about.

but I can throw out a possible interpretation, right?

I don't think dinah's right.

I'd wager that Compton is probably a descendant of a plural wife.

And, it is a fascinating bit of history. Not sure the women should be 'honored,' per se, but they definitely should be acknowledged in a way they really haven't been to this point. In the milieu of the time, they were truly blessed women. After all, isn't that the reason they were chosen to *be* plural wives -- the greatness of the prophet would ensure they had a place in heaven, an opportunity very few other women received?

"Not sure the women should be 'honored,' per se, but they definitely should be acknowledged in a way they really haven't been to this point."

That's what I was thinking...

Compton keeps on saying "we" should do certain things, like honor and remember the polygamous wives. But who can "we" possibly be, besides the Q15? It's as if Compton and the church are placing the responsibility for hiding the polygamous wives' past on the general church membership.

And, there's this (speaking about Helen Mar Kimball):

"The church also suggests that this particular marriage didn’t involve sexual relations. Compton agrees, adding that if the marriage was ever consummated, it was most likely when Helen was older."

Where does he get the data beind this? From what I've found, it seems like there was a sexual component (yes, no smoking gun, but pretty good circumstantial)... but nothing on timing of WHEN that consummation would have occurred. But maybe I missed something?

I see it differently.

What disgusts me about the LDS Church is that they COMPLETELY omit the plural wives from church manuals, magazines, videos, etc. They always mention the first wife but pretend the other wives don't exist. If you didn't know better, you'd think the Joseph Smith, Brighsm Young and company were monogamists.

Ask the average Mormon to name one of Smith's wives besides Emma and they'd probably look at you crossed eyed. I bet a majority of Mormons don't even know he was a polygamist.

The church doesn't want to taint the image of their precious Joseph Smith. Until recently, these women remained invisible to the world of modern Mormonism.

I also don't think Compton is necessarily blaming us or the members for this. I think he's using "we" as a careful usage of words to not come across as attacking THE CHURCH.

I guess that is what I am asking. What part of Compton needs to put lipstick on the pig that is the church?

These women made enormous sacrifices to live their religion. TSCC has tried to erase their history to protect and privilege the reputation of Smith. Whether or not you agree with polygamy (and I don't), their stories should be told.

I don't see how anyone can read "In Sacred Loneliness" without feeling these women should be honored.

I love his comment. I see the use of the royal we as a signal that, in his view, these women were victims and their role in Joseph Smith's life should be acknowledged.

His book honors them by giving them a voice.

There's no way, in my opinion, that an obsequious, obedient servant of the church would publish a book that so clearly condemns Joseph Smith unless he were motivated by compassion and sympathy for the plight of these young girls.

I honor his wry humor and his careful wording. He enabled his book to be published without him being pilloried like so many others.


Kathleen Waters

>>>>There's no way, in my opinion, that an obsequious, obedient servant of the church would publish a book that so clearly condemns Joseph Smith unless he were motivated by compassion and sympathy for the plight of these young girls.<<<<

You are right. The book clearly condemns JS.

What I LOVED about this book is it was clear, to me at least, that TC did his best to portray each woman's life the way SHE saw it.

If she felt seduced and betrayed, a woman who wanted NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Mormonism, he made that clear, while always honoring the woman. (Agnes Coolbrith comes to mind.)

If she felt like this was the most glorious thing that ever happened to her, the thing that made everything else be okay, he made THAT clear. (Ms. Zina comes to mind.)

He did his very very best with the limited resources he had to let each woman tell HER story, to get HER feelings on the record, while making it clear that these women were often NOT honored or even supported in their old age. (I can't think now of the name of the woman I am thinking of -- melodramatic -- tales of raising from the dead...she spoke at one of the BYU graduations -- claimed she know of several of JS children. Wrote many letters to BY complaining of her reduced circumstances, but never got any help. I just can't think of her name right now. Mary Lightner maybe?)

Todd Compton did a splendid job.

I wanted to stand up and cheer.

Someone should honor Todd Compton.

I think many someones already have.

Lois

If the church places JS wives in the spotlight, as Compton recommends, this will cause many people and members to read Compton's book. TSCC will necessarily quote the book in it's publications. Knowledge of these women will increase. This is bad for TSCC, and Compton knows it. Go Todd!

I think I will investigate this book. I can appreciate how the author wants these women to have a voice in modern times, too. It was always annoying when members oversimplified JS's polygamy.

My ward acknowledged polygamy in church history...but the topic was quickly hushed. No answers beyond "JS married widows to help them" and that polygamy was in place to populate the church (which, personally, I think is an ill reason to raise an army of children). No details about these womens' lives, names, kids, their personal legacies, or any details giving them individual identities. Nothing to make them real people; just archetypes. They were always "righteous, obedient women of the (LDS) Lord." Basically, how to describe nearly every Molly Mormon today.

Look at the bright side: plenty of work for the bronze sculpture industry when they put 32+ new statues in Temple Square!

Ha Ha! That's funny!

Plus they can make 32 more Mormon historical tourist traps for each of the birthplaces of the wives.

But isn't this the only logical position a mormon could take?

They say every instance was commanded by God. They do not admit or acknowledge even one illicit affair. Any suffering or hardship was noble obedience to God.

Compton sees no need to put lipstick on a pig. It's a pig--a fine respectable farm animal no farmer is ashamed to own. A little smelly but that's farm life.

Show it off, enter it in the county fair. Honor and celebrate it.

Sickos.

I have known Todd for many years. He is a serious scholar and meticulous researcher. He is purist in his his desire (and ability) to provide straight up facts without lots of interpretation.

Todd didn't try to blow up Joseph Smith or Mormonism for his wives. He didn't call Smith a pedophile, and he didn't make moral judgements, but stuck to historical reports. He also didn't obfuscate in order to bury truths that church members or leaders would find unpalatable.

One thing he did, extremely well I believe, is recognize these marriages had been not only ignored by history, but denied by certain members and leaders. This chapter of Mormon history has been missing from the record, and it's absence was unfair for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which was that polygamy was an exercise of faith by the wives of Joseph Smith. You can pass whatever judgment you will on that faith, but be glad the info is available so the legacy of these women isn't lost.

If Mormons can't celebrate these women, then they have to question their faith. If they can celebrate them, then they can begin to live honestly as members of a church who's founder used his position to take many wives, manipulate many families, lie about it and pass on his legacy of polygamy to people ranging from Brigham Young to Warren Jeffs.

Compton's work fills such an important void. There would be no polygamy essay without his book. There would have been no New York Times article, NPR story or Huffington Post article.

So, how should you, whether exmormon, tbm or fence-sitter feel about the women JS married? Should each of their stories be condensed down to "that's disgusting?" I think there is so much more...

Like it or not, these women made huge contributions to Mormon history. Some of them ran the relief society, when it was an independent organization. Others simply lived their lives as members and yet others left the church. They were all right there in the beginning, helping to create Mormon culture.

My view is that everyone of them has a story that needs to be told. I'm glad for Compton's work. I'm glad that he wants tscc to own this piece of history instead of hiding and burying it.

An interesting nuance is that Compton calls on "conservative leaders" to embrace this part of the truth. By that, I believe he is asking the most pious, self-righteous leaders to see the stains that honest history has left on their church.

It is kind of like asking tbms to be honest about everything...very tough, right? Do you teach your kids the "gold plate translation" or the "rock in a hat?"

Are you a Joseph Smith purist, or are you determined to make him out to be something he is not? If a purist, then it is the rock in the hat and the 33 wives and polygamy and polyandry. If you want to make him something he's not, it is gold plates and only Emma.

So, honor these women=enormous challenge. It ultimately means, "stop lying." That ultimately means, "guess what, we've been lying." That ultimately means lds leaders are fallible. That means there is absolutely no reason to follow lds leaders.

So, Compton, a liberal scholar wants to honor women who helped form the lives of mormonism's founder and many early Mormons. Perhaps his is an act of pure faith. In the world of BKP and his ilk, some of these truths aren't very useful, because they discredit the lies some church leaders have been telling. As those lies are uncovered, there is a healthy uncovering of the truth that Mormon leaders don't speak for God. Compton has laid a trap of honesty, and tscc is caught in it. Robe honest now, they have to be uncomfortable and answer a set of questions they never wanted anyone to ask.

Nothing bad can come from the truth unless you prefer to live a lie.

So, yes, tscc should be called on the carpet to celebrate the history of their beloved prophet, and his many wives.

For those of us who have moved on, we get to own a piece of this as well. I'm BIC, bit out since 1999. I have polygamy in my ancestry, and I get to own that now as a guy in his mid-40s. I honor my 3rd great grandfather who had 3 wives in Utah's high desert. It is ok. I'm glad, however, that my faith (no religious faith here) doesn't make me regret my decisions. I can regret, or not, all by my big boy self.

With Compton, the Mormon lens is different, and Mormons will have to struggle with seeing themselves differently than ever before...all in the name of honesty and truth. Jesus would be so proud. Would Monson?

Happy thanksgiving, everyone.

"He also didn't obfuscate in order to bury truths that church members or leaders would find unpalatable."

I read that part and want to puke right here on the computer keys.
This is the same puking effect I get whenever I read this smarmy deceptive rhetoric.

Are you serious?

The description of each marriage sounded sugar sweet and completely unrealistic based on other details I've read.

He mentions Elizabeth Davis was a good friend of Emma Smith.

He writes, Emma eventually forced them (the Partridge sisters) to leave, unable to bear the pain of having Joseph's plural wives living in her house. Joseph allegedly shook their hands and told them there was nothing he could do. The prophet wanted to keep his polygamy a secret and stay on Emma's good side.

He doesn't mention the threats used on these honorable women. Emma taking the broom to one, throwing out others.

Each woman's story is written with such a positive spin I had to stop and make sure I was reading the events properly.



He writes about Helen, "But that doesn't mean Helen was completely happy about the prospect."

Wasn't Helen's union threatened with destruction from an angel with a drawn sword if they didn't comply?
Or was that another wife and family?

We'll never know the more gruesome events the wives went through if we're relying on this pathetic summary to give the truth details.

What part of that is not obfuscating?

What part of that isn't burying truths?



Another reference briefly describes Lucy Walkers original hesitation, but she ended in a blissful peaceful acquiesence of the delightful marriage to Joseph.

It's a little more accurate but still pathetic.

There's no mention of Jane Law and others who spoke badly of him and denied his marriage proposal thereby being slandered by him and driven out. Jane wasn't the only one who didn't have Comptons version of accepting, embracing and acquiesent marital devotion, even if they had a change of heart to arrive at their embrace of it.

There were others who didn't like it, didn't embrace it and didn't have a positive feeling toward marrying Smith.


How about Nancy Rigdon?
http://www.i4m.com/think/history/smith_letter.htm

He's only including the one's who accepted.
Who did Emma push down the stairs causing a miscarriage? Eliza Snow? I'd never know by Comptons sweet description of Snow's marriage.

nope, it was a white-washed cherry-picked version of all-out omissions and half-truths along with some actual truths to make the polygamous relationships read more palatable or easy to swallow and accept aka brainwashing and programming through information that isn't completely true, correct or accurate.

Put the nicer stuff in and leave the icky stuff out.


Compton briefly admits to a jealous reaction by Emma but glosses over it very quickly with no detail that might come off unpalatable. "Desdemona Fullmer, age 32-33, single
Fullmer was a devout woman who received visions and dreamed of angels throughout her life. Like many of Joseph's wives, she lived in his home before he proposed to her. The union apparently made Emma angry and jealous."


The union apparently made Emma angry and jealous?
wow, that's an understatment if ever there was!
What the heck! What's wrong with Compton!
He gets away with his definition of being honest by including a small truth while glossing over it in any truthful, honestly descriptive or meaningful way.

Members and non-members don't need to read the real details about the wives. As long as you give a tiny bit you're okay. You're not full-out lying if you give main details and leave out the yuckier parts.


Compton forgoes mentioning the more unpalatable events of polygamy while choosing to gloss over it with a sweet brush stroke of words. How about ""Still smarting from finding Elizas letters to Joseph the previous day, Emma went for a short carriage ride with her husband on August 22. She called on Lucian Woodworth family while Joseph attended to some business at the temple. Emma apparently did not know that the Woodworths sixteen year old daughter Flora had been Josephs plural wife since spring. What probably began as a casual social visit resulted in a confrontation between Emma and Flora when Emma discovered that Joseph had given Flora a gold watch. She would have recognized the implications of such a gift, since he had also given one to Eliza Snow. Joseph returned just as Emma "was demanding the gold watch" from Flora, and he reprimanded her. Once in the carriage, however, Emmas vented her own frustrations. Joseph told Clayton she continued "her abuse" after they arrived home, and said he finally had to employ "harsh measures" to stop her."
(Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippitts Avery, Mormon Enigma, 159)

(Diary of William Clayton, Excerpts. Joseph's marriage to Flora Woodworth is documented fron Jenson, Historical Record 6:225. See also Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, p.481. The gold watch that Joseph gave to Eliza Snow is in possession of the LDS Church. For more information on Eliza's watch see Mary Belnap Lowe statement, Ogden, Ut., 12 May 1841, LDS Archives.)

(D&C 132)54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

I don't mean this to be sarcastic, but come on, to compare this to the average marriage? If Mormonism is true or untrue, either way this is hardly a example of typical marriage "disagreements". Leaving up the toilet lid, sneaking off to buy a hot dog, leaving my socks inside out inthe hamper...sorry I can't relate.

D&C 132: 52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

Compton describes the polyandrous relationships but doesn't describe the fall-out with a number of the husbands in proportion to their actual occurrance. He glosses over that too or doesn't describe it at all.

There are other examples but I'll stop here.

How honest and truthful are Comptons descriptions?
Even the few token difficulties were all good by the end of the paragraph, or glossed over without an accurate account.


It was dishonest and inaccurate, not to mention misleading, but mormons have had years of practise in this and it's as easy as rolling off the proverbial log.

Comptons written presentation and style reminds me of the essays.
Does Compton write the church essays?
Sounds like the same sort of half-lie obfuscation while claiming that their being truthful and transparent.
Do NOT try to convince me that it's not obfuscation.

You embarrass yourself and show your true colors.
Shame on you!
Do you think I am that STupid!

He could have portrayed a lot more negativity, as you suggest. The title of the book includes "sacred" and "loneliness."

The world, exmormon, tscc and all of us are better off with his compilation than without it.

He could have written with the same tone as the Tanners, who had the sole intent of bashing and tearing down tscc (a worthy goal, to be sure). Compton takes a far more balanced approach, where his intent is to report facts. His intent was to gather the facts, and put them in one place so people could see what was going on from the view of those involved.

Obviously, it makes us sad and angry to know that these women gave their spirituality and humanity to a con-man. But it is a testament to the human spirit that in spite of the problems, many of these women lived meaningful lives.

Again, without Compton, there would be no essay. Tscc would still be denying accountability. There would be no press on the subject, and members who would have been told that Compton is a lying anti-Mormon have now been referred to his work as a place to learn about JS infidelity, wives, polyandry, sex with teens, etc.

So, no, the book isn't anti-Mormon, but it is anti-tradition. Mormon tradition is to pretend JS was better than he was. "Praise to the man" and all that.

The book is a shelf breaker. Perhaps milk before meat for many people here, but still a worthwhile read.

"It is kind of like asking tbms to be honest about everything...very tough, right? Do you teach your kids the "gold plate translation" or the "rock in a hat?"

You teach kids the truth.
Most people would that is.
TBMS, yeah, very tough to tell or teach the truth.
Why?
Their trained to lie in the name of truth.
Compton's feeble description of the polygamous marriages fits the traditional lds pattern.
It's hard to change habits but it can be done.

Honoring the women is great, but please describe the polygamous situations with less deception and more truth.
I know it's hard to break from the traditional format and pattern, but it's worth it.

I'm going to weigh in here again and just add that no matter what Compton himself meant by the HuffPo comment about "honoring" them, I agree his writing has done that well.
Polygamy is just too much for me to handle. I feel pity for those women who were used and disdain for the ones who defended it so strongly. I hate polygamy. Am I interested in the church more openly honoring the beaten-down women who sacrificed everything? No. Enough modern beaten-down women in the church already suppose that being beaten-down is the only way to please God. More praise for polygamy's victims is still more praise for polygamy. It all makes me sick.

" More praise for polygamy's victims is still more praise for polygamy."

I don't think he praises them because they were polygamists, but because they were individuals whose stories have been silenced by TSCC in order to whitewash Joseph Smith. Recognizing the individuals involved, rather than just reducing them to a harem or herd of unfortunate victims, emphasizes the real cost of early church polygamy. Real, individual women were coerced, hurt, intimidated, hidden, maybe got pregnant/miscarried/gave birth, etc. It's one thing to read that JS had 40 wives, but when they are named and known as real people with real lives, we start to understand the implications of Joe's multi-wifery -- and those implications are mostly sordid, shocking, and unpalatable to twenty-first-century sensibilities (like most things about Joseph Smith). Their lived experiences matter.

I should have been clearer in the original post. Honoring the wives who reprieved Joseph from the angel with the flaming phallus is one thing. I saw those two comments as going in totally opposite directions.

Yes, those women should be named and recognized and honored. But honored for what, in particular?

It is Todd's comment "We should honor that polygamous background in our history and in Joseph Smith’s history" that rankles me. I do not think that any part of the polygamous background is honorable. I do not think that Joseph Smith's history is honorable.

Honoring the women is one thing. Honoring Joseph Smith for subjugating women is quite another. Honoring the polygamous background is a misnomer. Polygamy is not a background but a doctrine coded in canonized text, which makes it very much a foreground--men are still sealed to more than one wife.

Well said. I guess what bothered me initially in this quote is exactly that. Compton's suggestion that we should honor polygamy in the church's history and in Joseph Smith's history suggests to me that he thinks there is something pretty damn awesome about it.

I agree with you. Nothing honorable about it anywhere. Even IF you believe God commanded it (as in D&C 132), Joseph didn't do it the way God commanded it. It's a big pile of stink. It's nothing but hurt because of the doctrine that continues.

I still say they were victims of a sex predator and conman. This is obvious to most other people in the world too. There was actually no polygamy, because polygamy was illegal, and you can't obtain true consent by using threats of eternal destruction.

And fourteen year olds are kids.

That's not what he is saying.

Ex-CultMember laid it out nicely.

He says what everyone is saying: LDStINK - COME CLEAN! Wash yourselves of that lying filth and tell the members and world the truth about your founder's lifestyle and let these women's stories be told, as they were a great part of the founding of this so-called church, by hook crook or book. Instead of denying it, just tell the truth.

Old habits are hard to break. It has been denying, lying, omitting and covering up so much of its past that it really doesn't move through the now very smoothly into the future truthfully. Lies don't build truth. They don't build trust. They don't build faith.

The foundations of Mormonism: it is about the man and what he did and how he did it that draws people in or turns them away. It draws people in if they don't know much him [JS-polygamy-bigamy-adultery-coersion...] and turns them away if they do.

So, who are these women? Where did they come from? What attracted them to JS'sCult? What were their hobbies, backgrounds? What did they think about JSJ? What did they think about Mormonism 10 years in? What did they go on to do after being Joe's 9th, or 21st wife, in spite of Mormonism-polygamy, after leaving... if they ever did?

Most everybody wants the Mormons to tell the truth, despite the fact that most members think they already know it.

These women who married JS married themselves to a married man. Many of them were married themselves? They were committing adultery, violating their own marriage vows and helping a married man to cheat on his wife. Many of them knew Emma, and in a few cases she had let them into her home as long term guests.

Do you honor homewreckers? Do you honor women who steal other women's husbands? Do you honor women who cheat on their own husbands?

I'm not being sexist, because JS was the big schmuck here, but that doesn't mean those who were complicit in his adulteries should be considered heroines.

I wouldn't consider the women adulterers or home wreckers. Yes, ultimately that was the result; however, they were duped. They honestly believed that JS was speaking for God. They're victims.

I read a good chunk of his book. I tried to read the whole thing, but polygamy just turns my stomach. I didn't come away thinking there was some redeeming quality in the practice, only that it damaged an awful lot of people.

If anyone did anything honorable, it was the women and men who would not subject themselves to such a practice. Do we honor the abused who stay with their abusers? The church is now acknowledging this abuse happened, but that just makes them look really bad. It was unjustifiable no matter how anyone slices it. It always comes down to Joseph Smith was one sick mother.

The fact is: many members from polygamous families never mention it. I had no idea there were many in our Ward until I was asked to write some vignettes for a theater production. Several Ward members submitted historical stoies from their families that I put into a play and produced and directed it. Those polygamous lives started to come to life.

I think that is what Mr. Compton was getting at. The generations of these polygamous families are nearly invisible in the LDS Church these days.

I have the book. Read most of it many years ago.
He made the point that this was a very hard life. Women did not have the rights their sisters, several generations later would have.