Talk:Latter Day Saint polygamy in the late-19th century

merge proposal
I propose we merge 1886 Revelation into this article. In fact, I have already moved all the content here, since the article is so small. If the topic is not well known, I think it is reasonable to put it together with the other information here, where it will be more visible, and with context.
 * Merge - --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On the fence I think the article is key to a few more places than just this topic of Polygamy in Utah (the fundamentalists are in much more places than just Utah), and I think it wise to include it more into other articles on polygamy and the LDS movement, hence the reason I created it, there was no other source pointing to it or consolidating the info on it, and therefore there was a need to expound on the topic because it is so doctinally important and centric to a few fundamentalist sects that it is a self-important article. Twunchy (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge but agree with Twunchy, as discussed at talk page at Origins. What about the name Latter Day Saint polygamy in the West? I believe this would address the concerns, and as far as I know, was only practiced there, including the western part of Mexico, after the Mormon Exodus. Écrasez l&#39;infâme (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Its been almost 2 years since this proposal, and upon review I am retracting the proposal. I think 1886 revelation is a good article to stand on its own. Will remove the merge tags in just a min.--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of sources
I am concerned with the extent to which this article relies upon Richard Abanes' controversial work, One Nation Under Gods. Other articles covering similar topics appear to have scaled back their use of that book, and it might be wise for this article to do the same.

George D. Smith is cited as an "LDS historian." He is published in Mormon things and may well be considered a historian, but he is probably best identified as a humanist, if not an atheist. Certainly he runs a press that usually promotes views at variance with normative LDS discourse. It may be best to simply drop the "LDS" descriptor.

In the "Coercion and deception" paragraph, we see the following sentence:

"Ann Eliza Young, nineteenth wife of Brigham Young, claimed that Young coerced her to marry him by threatening financial ruin of her brother.[24]"

While this assertion probably ought to be included for completeness, it is a controversial one that has been strongly contested. It might be appropriate to mention something like the following:

"This claim has been disputed by LDS scholars. Since Ann Eliza described her marriage to Young as non-conjugal, it is difficult to find a motive for him to try to coerce her."

Both Stenhouse and Ann Eliza had their books ghostwritten by J. H. Beadle, who was a prolific producer of 19th century anti-Mormon polemics. The Stenhouse quote, filled as it is with such value-laden terms as "horrible," "unnatural," "disgust and abhorrence," seems out of place, unless the purpose for its inclusion is to show the kind of wrought-up indignation that characterised this genre.

Scholars who defend early Mormons against the sensationalised claims that have been made are twice described as "Church apologists," a term that tends to imply that they were merely saying what the Church wanted them to say. I suggest that this descriptor, given its propensity to marginalise their POV, and thus give unequal weight to the opposite POV, be removed.

Regards, Rmcgregor57 (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologist does not imply that the church told people what to say. "Apologist" is easily the best descriptor for such defenders of the Mormon church. I would oppose vehemently its removal.--Descartes1979 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, you're attached to the term. You appear to be arguing as an apologist for the word "apologist."  Do you accept that George D. Smith is likewise an apologist for a secular-humanist view of Mormon history?  If Smith, who is not a Mormon in any meaningful way, gets to be an "LDS historian," why can't, say, Hugh W. Nibley likewise be an "LDS historian?"  Is someone an expert in the field only when they provide information that makes Mormonism or polygamy look bad, but a tendentious advocate as soon as they provide an alternative view?  The article presents these viewpoints as the "historians" versus the "apologists."  Why must the dice be thus loaded?  Why can it not simply be the case that some historians view things one way, while others view them differently?


 * The problem is compounded by having the word "Church" in front of it. While many Mormons have acted as apologists for various points of view, a "Church apologist" sounds like someone with official standing to act as an apologist on behalf of the Church; which, in fact, no-one is.  Are you implacably opposed to any revision of this usage whatsoever? Rmcgregor57 (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * George D. Smith is not an apologist for anything because he bases his historical research objectively. The same reason why Robert Ritner is not an apologist for Egyptology's view of the Book of Abraham, but John Gee is a Mormon apologist for the Book of Abraham. There is a stark difference here. On one side you have defenders of the faith, who argue that the Mormon church's view of events and history is accurate, and on the other hand you have objective scientists and historians that aren't defending or advocating anything - they are just reporting the facts and conclusions from the evidence. If you have issue with "Church apologist" then change it to Mormon apologist or something like that. And by the way, if the apologist works for BYU, or FARMS, remember that their salary is paid by the church from the tithes of the membership, and often their conclusions are cited by general authorities or published on the main church website - so I would argue that you can indeed call them "church" apologists in many cases. Hugh Nibley is a fantastic example of this. Also - smart as the guy was, he has a history of bending facts and even out right lying to defend the church. That sounds like apologetics to me (and even poor apologetics at that). Another way to think about it is in the case of general Christian apologetics. C.S. Lewis is widely regarded as the pre-eminent Christian "apologist". But he was not paid or officially supported by anyone but himself (as far as I know - correct me if I am wrong) --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and by the way - Mormon apologetics has its own article on the wikipedia if you want to talk definitions of the term. Nibley, FARMS, and FAIR (and by corollary all of their members and scholars) are listed there as examples of "Mormon apologists".--Descartes1979 (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining your rationale for the use of this term. You have spelled out the fact that you have a non-neutral POV, and the use of the term "apologist" supports it.  I think we had best shelve this discussion until we can get another opinion on it.  In the meantime, since you did not object to any of my other proposed edits, I will get started on them.  Rmcgregor57 (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ...sigh, even these individuals consider themselves "apologists" - but if you want to beleaguer the point then sure lets see what the community has to say about it. I don't see this as a controversial issue though, and I highly doubt it will change - there are 2887 articles on Mormonism on the WP and this is the convention that is used on every single one of them. And by the way - every Wikipedian has their biases - good Wikipedians keep them in check when they edit. You have also shown pretty clearly your biases and POV as well, so you aren't scoring any points by accusing me of a POV. I have been around the block here for quite a while you know. --Descartes1979 (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know they do. Everyone who defends a position -- whatever it is -- is an apologist for that position.  George D. Smith has his prejudices, as does Robert Ritner. (There is no single "Egyptology's view of the Book of Abraham."  The Book of Abraham is not an egyptological question, although egyptology certainly has considerable value in studying the recovered papyri that Joseph Smith once had.  But egyptology can't tell us anything about the English Book of Abraham except that it doesn't represent an egyptological translation of those papyri, and Hugh Nibley told us that in 1968.)  Nibley had his prejudices too; but the "man in tweed" did not exist.  It is simply not a case of Superbly Impartial Scholars versus craven, unscrupulous "apologists," and if that's what you think the term means, then if you are really controlling for your biases, you might consider that.  Rmcgregor57 (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely disagree with you on the idea that the Book of Abraham is not a egyptological question. And yes, after reading every non-Mormon Egyptologists thoughts on the matter that I know of, they very much do have a single consensus on the issue. That is one of the great straw-men arguments from Mormon apologists regarding the BOA - because its simply not true. But that is a topic for the BOA talk page, and would love to talk through it with you - that is actually my favorite topic in mormonism and I have been studying that issue specifically for many years. But I will grant you that there are no "superbly impartial scholars" - I will readily accept that anyone has their biases, just as you and I do. However, it is pretty easy when you read research papers who is taking an apologetic tone and who is trying to be true to original sources and reporting facts. Its not even close to the same material. And I will grant you that many apologists have published solid research, and many critics have been polemic too - it goes both ways.--Descartes1979 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have one more edit. Reed Smoot is described as a "known polygamist."  I don't know by whom he was thus known, but he wasn't one, so I'll be correcting that as well. Rmcgregor57 (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch.--Descartes1979 (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There is an ellipsis in one of the Kimball quotes that materially changes its meaning, in my opinion. I propose to restore the elided material.

Also, I am trying to run down the Kimball quote provided via Hirshson's The Lion of the Lord. This is a book that was described by non-Mormon scholar Jan Shipps as "dreadful," and which received an MHA award for being the worst biography ever published. Rmcgregor57 (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem. I don't know this book of which you speak, but if there is something that is correct in it, even if the bulk of the book is incorrect, or everyone thinks its a bad book, then why not include that bit of information that is true/correct?--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not indeed? The problem is that this is yet another instance of a unique quotation -- yet again attributed to Heber C. Kimball -- that is unattested elswhere.  Now it happens that Hirshson was a university-trained historian with several publications to his credit, so (unlike Ann Eliza) I don't suspect him of having made up the quote.  He most probably got it from somewhere, but I don't know where.  The book seems to be out of print, so it's not all that easy to check his footnotes, presuming that he footnoted it.  The point is that, at the moment, Hirshson is the sole authority for a quote that looks suspicious, and it just so happens that Lion is not a highly regarded source.  And you know, the MHA is not exactly dominated by conservative church-going Mormons.  Rmcgregor57 (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are your two Hirshson references. Hirshson 1969 pp. 129-130: Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake.[65] Endnote [65] references The New York Tribune, May 15, 1860 and The New York Times, April 17, 1860. Here's the relevant paragraph from the newspaper article: Some time ago HEBER KIMBALL was lecturing some missionaries who were preparing to start out on foreign missions, in the Tabernacle, and said to them: "Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother Missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake." The old reprobate then had at least a score of women whom he called wives. (FROM UTAH.; "Polygamy and its Fruits--The Missionaries--The Pony Express--More Pugnacious Preaching--Death of a Prominent Physician--The Season.", The New York Times, May 15, 1860.) No indication is given regarding who heard Kimball state this. The byline on the article is simply "From Our Own Correspondents" Hirshson 1969 pp. 126-127 is cited as the source for the following sentence in the article: Historian Stanley Hirshson described cases of girls aged 10 and 11 being married to old men. From the source, we have: In 1857, The New York Times, reporting the sealings to old men of two girls aged ten and eleven, estimated that most girls married before they were fourteen. [54] Endnote [54] references Burton: City of the Saints, p. 477; The New York Times, May 19, 1857. Checking the NYT online archives for that date shows and article with the headline "HIGHLY INTERESTING FROM UTAH. Graphic Narrative of Mormon Outrages. MELANCHOLY AND AFFECTING INCIDENTS. HORRIBLE PRACTICES IN THE CHURCH. Sale of Young Girls&mdash;Forcible "Sealing"&mdash;Extraordinary Proceedings of a Probate Court&mdash;Stirring Appeals for Succor, &c., &c." The article goes on to talk of the "Mormon treason which has now seized fast hold of the Government of Utah." The relevant paragraph from the article states, It was only a few days ago that two little girls, between 10 and 11 years of age, were "sealed" to old men. It is a very common occurrence for girls of 14 to be taken as wives. One object seems to be to get these children into the horrible system of polygamy before they are old enough to think for themselves, or the natural delicacy of their sex shall be aroused and rebel against it. ("Graphic Narrative of Mormon Outrages.", The New York Times, May 19, 1857.).

Roger Penumbra (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Great work pulling these references!--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just added them both into the article. Much more solid now I think.--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Reed Smoot
Evidently my earlier edit regarding Reed Smoot was "heavy-handed." Since Smoot did not and never had practiced polygamy, what were the senate hearings but an attempt to impose a religious test?

Smoot was not opposed because he had come from Utah; Senator Kearns was already there. What was the difference? Kearns was a Catholic; Smoot was a Mormon. There was no question that anyone had personal grievances against Smoot, or that there were any grounds for supposing him to have done anything illegal. The hearings involved interrogating various people, including Church President Joseph F. Smith, about LDS beliefs and religious rituals.

Evidently there was something bad about referring to Senator Burrows' remarks as showing prejudice against Mormons. What stronger language than "infamous doctrine" and "deluded people," or more inflammatory misrepresentation than "limited in number only by the measures of their desires," would suffice to convince my fellow-editors that Burrows was anything less than completely impartial about Mormons and Mormonism? Is there some Wikipedia rule I haven't found that forbids mentioning prejudice against Mormons? Rmcgregor57 (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Try not to jump to conclusions about edits to your content - you have provided some great input, an corrected at least one egregious error. Editing the wikipedia is a process by which everyone's contributions are going to get sliced and diced, edited and corrected. And that is a good thing - that is the process that has made WP successful. There is nothing "evident" or "bad" about things that you contributed. Try to refrain from heated rhetoric and lets talk about the issues - if you think something has been removed or changed that detracts from the article, lets talk about it, and come to a consensus together about what it should say. To your points specifically - the way the "religious test" comment was written, it was very clear that this was very much your opinion and not the opinion of a historian or other scholar. If you can find a historian that has published a paper speaking to that, I have no problem adding it back in. Please review WP:OR and WP:RS. By the way, I have read the transcript of the Smoot Hearings - so I know what is in there. And once again I will echo - related to Mormon articles, it is my experience that it is extremely rare to find any "impartial" opinions on anything related to Mormonism - so the best way to acheive WP:NPOV is to air both sides and let the reader decide. --Descartes1979 (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latter Day Saint polygamy in the late-19th century. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010053517/http://www.ushistory.org/gop/convention_1856.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/gop/convention_1856.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latter Day Saint polygamy in the late-19th century. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611220902/http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=%2FNCMP1847-1877&CISOPTR=2917&CISOSHOW=2859 to http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=%2FNCMP1847-1877&CISOPTR=2917&CISOSHOW=2859

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)