Talk:Reed Smoot hearings

What does this paragraph mean?
The article originally said:

''In the 1900s, U.S. Senators were elected by the state legislators. Seeking approval from President Joseph F. Smith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was required. It was church policy that its senior officers could not campaign for office unless approved. President Smith gave his approval and blessing. In 1902 Smoot moved to build up support and run as a republican senator. In January of 1903, he received 46 votes, compared to his democrat competitor who won 16. Smoot was elected.''

This doesn't make much sense. I've tried to rewrite it in accordance with my knowledge of history and common sense, but I'm not that familiar with the period, so please speak up if I'm wrong. --Jfruh 03:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct. I couldn't think of a better way to word it at the time. You did a good job. The three points I wanted to make: Smoot needed and got approval; Legislature elects senators; Smoot won decisively. Jgardner 06:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad I didn't screw anything up! One follow-up: are you sure those vote totals are right?  The total number of voting legislators (62) seems awfully low.  Does it perhaps only represent the votes in one of the houses of the state legislature? --Jfruh 07:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Good question. I don't know how to find out - I was quoting some other source. Jgardner 23:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Conflating two issues
It seems that there are two issues of post-manifesto polygamy that are conflated in the introduction. This actually goes back to two understandings of the pardon by Benjamin Harrison. To people like Heber J. Grant, Joseph F. Smith and B. H. Roberts the pardon meant that the government would no longer prosecute them for marriages entered into before the pardon was granted. To Harrison, the pardon meant the government would not prosecute for actions taken before 1890. Put another way, neither in the 1890 manifesto nor anywhere else did Church leaders suggest that they ending of new plural marriages would mean that marriages already entered into would be dissolved. While at times, under extreme outside pressure Wilford Woodruff does seem to have suggested that active cohabitating within plural marriages would be discouraged, the teaching within the church was always that existing marriages were to be in force. This article seems to conflate not starting new plural marriages as an issue with the continuance of marriages that already existed. In the minds of those in plural marriage they were never the same issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)