Note: This is a book review of The Reluctant Polygamist, by Meg Stout. This book will be released within the next few weeks. Meg has posted an offer for a limited autographed edition at a discount.
As a historian, I frequently find intriguing stories told by others with interesting interpretations of the data. When there is much quality data available, most scholars will tend to agree on the interpretation of that data.
Sadly for us, the issue of polygamy in the early Church (Kirtland and Nauvoo) was often shrouded in secrecy and mystery. Most discussions regarding it were not written down until decades later, often in second, third or even fourth hand accounts. Even then, many of the accounts were filled with suppositions or only half-told hints, leaving modern historians to attempt to fill in the blank spaces.
For this reason, we have authors who: insisted Joseph was near perfect (Joseph Fielding Smith), a human called of God to create a new religion line upon line, while learning through his trials and mistakes (Richard Bushman), a “pious fraud” (Dan Vogel), or perhaps someone who received “visions” as a result of seizures (Fawn Brodie).
As noted, early polygamy was secretive and left few good historical discussions for us. For this reason, we now have books and articles that suppose Joseph turned to plural marriage to satisfy his lecherous cravings.
When Meg Stout began her Millennial Star journey of discussing Joseph Smith and polygamy in 2014, she didn’t foresee this would lead to her current book. I’m glad it did. As with many other books on Joseph Smith and polygamy, Meg provides her own theories for us to consider and deal with. She begins with a history of the early Church, and also of the technology, beliefs, and medical skills of the day – all affecting the story of polygamy and Joseph Smith. For example, she shows that Joseph’s polygamy was not the only game in town, as the Shakers practiced celibacy, while others experimented with free love.
The Reluctant Polygamist discusses each of Joseph’s wives, and those of other early members in Nauvoo. Meg divides the women into a few distinct groups, explaining the concept behind most of the marriages, such as levirate marriages (Biblical concept of raising up seed to a first husband who has died), women Joseph was specifically commanded to marry, or dynastic wives – tying families together into the family of the Prophet.
Unlike other historical accounts of early Mormon polygamy, Meg presents a complex and twisted account. She shares an account of a Joseph Smith, who was reluctant to embrace polygamy, even when threatened by an angel with a sword. At the same time, she shows how Satan presented his counterfeit form: spiritual wifery.
Meg uses a variety of points to demonstrate that Doctor John Bennett and his colleagues were seducing many of the women of Nauvoo, claiming Joseph had taught and encouraged spiritual wifery. Instead, Joseph only taught a celestial form of plural marriage and led a quiet effort to find out who was involved in Bennett’s conspiracy. This leads to a few more plural marriage groups, which besides Meg, I don’t think I’ve ever seen suggested by other authors. These include the victims of Bennett’s spiritual wifery, women who were seduced and perhaps would not be considered worthy to ever be married by a righteous Mormon man; and investigators – plural wives, who were given the assignment to search out other victims, and the men who assaulted them.
As I noted, often the evidence is slim, but Meg often combines testimonies, remembrances, and occasionally hearsay, to create a web of Nauvoo intrigue; as Joseph sought to root out the wicked, while keeping his commanded plural marriage as quiet as possible. Such would be the story of apostle Orson Pratt’s wife, Sarah, one who was victimized by Bennett and his group. Bennett would claim that it was Joseph who bedded her, causing Orson (who recently returned from a mission in Europe) to pause on just who did what.
At the same time that she opens new roads for us to explore in regards to Mormon polygamy, sometimes it feels like she reaches too far to make some points. For example, Meg suggests that Eliza R. Snow was one of the victims of Bennett. Her evidence primarily comes from some poetry Eliza wrote that may or may not deal with spiritual wifery, and an inaccurate third hand account of Emma Smith pushing a supposedly pregnant Eliza down the stairs of the Smith home (neither Smith home in Nauvoo had stairs). This contrasts with recent evidence provided by BYU-Idaho historian and professor Andrea Radke-Moss that Eliza was gang raped by eight Missourians during the great trials the Mormons endured in that state. Professor Radke-Moss stated, “The rape was brutal, and so it made Eliza unable to have children,” and that Joseph Smith “offered her marriage as a way of promising her that she would still have eternal offspring and that she would be a mother in Zion.” While Emma may have pushed Eliza down some stairs, it is highly unlikely she was pregnant at the time (with Joseph or Bennett’s child).
In other words, Eliza was a victim, but possibly not one of Bennett’s victims. However, it may be possible that Joseph saw her as a potential Bennett victim, and had her sealed to him prior to her falling as others did, such as Sarah Pratt. This episode definitely shows the tenderness that Joseph had towards the downtrodden, taking Eliza from the dregs of society (as many raped women were viewed by 19th century America), to an uplifted status, being approved and blessed by the Prophet Joseph.
Still, besides a couple moments of over-reaching like this one, Meg does an admirable job of presenting a series of theories that enhance our understanding of what may have happened in Nauvoo. She then is able to extend the battle of Joseph’s plural marriage vs Bennett’s spiritual wifery to the eventual secret group of the offended and their plot that eventually ended Joseph’s life at Carthage.
For an unexpected look at the secrets lurking around Nauvoo in the days of Joseph Smith, I highly recommend the Reluctant Polygamist as a very good place to start. Meg Stout has provided us the opportunity to see Joseph and polygamy in a new light, with Joseph as an imperfect hero, trying to obey the Lord while fighting the ever growing evils and dangers around him.
New Post: Book Review: The Reluctant Polygamist, by Meg Stout: Note: This is a book review of The… https://t.co/3VzR0NPCqO #LDS #Mormon
Very well done review, Rame.
TheMillennialStar: Book Review: The Reluctant Polygamist, by Meg Stout https://t.co/5mwqCkoN0b #lds #mormon
Thank you for the review!
A minor point. Rather than thinking of Joseph as an imperfect hero, I prefer to see him as an embattled hero. We who consider Joseph imperfect usually have no idea what tactical dangers he was facing.
As General Fred Franks wrote to General Schwarzkopf during the Gulf War, “Don’t second-guess us at 600 kilometers from the fight.” Neither should we presume to second-guess Joseph Smith at a distance of 175 years.
Joseph was often embattled, but always imperfect. He admitted such, as he called himself a “rough stone rolling” with each bump knocking off a rough edge until he would be smooth and perfected. Still, it is a minor distinction.
There was a lot that was expected of Joseph and his contemporaries. More than what is expected of us today.
I sometimes wonder where I could have fit in back then, how many times I could have been uprooted and persecuted and suffered privation.
I finally figured it out. I could never have joined/survived prior to the migration to the Salt Lake valley. I wouldn’t have survived New York/Pennsylvania, Kirtland, Missouri, nor Nauvoo. I wouldn’t have survived the United Order.
I dont think I would have survived the insular Utah period. I would not have survived modern Utah, culturally speaking. So I needed to be planted in “the mission field”.
My conclusion is that I had to wait until the consolidated block of sunday meetings.
Thanks for the review, Rame. And Meg, I’m just thrilled to see everything coming together in book form–congrats!
Having read her book and spoken with her at length on the topic, I have to add my “witness,” if you will, to her book. It presents Joseph Smith in a different light from any other book or blog post I’ve read about him. It’s well worth reading.
What I appreciate most about it is best explained with this allegory. Consider the black and white drawing which shows the faces of two women, a young one wearing a feathered hat and an aged one wearing a scarf. Both images are present, but the face you see is determined by what you are looking for. Once you see one, it’s hard, if not impossible, to see the other.
The conclusions Meg gives us, draw from the same evidence we’ve known about for years. But like the drawing, it presents it in a way far different from what we’ve been conditioned to see. I like the Joseph she presents much more than any other I’ve read about. Bravo Meg!
Minor correction, Brodie thought that Joseph Smith was a total fraud out to get rich quick through religion who eventually started to believe his own lies. Not that there aren’t those who believed he had seizure visions.
The reason I picked on the word “imperfect” is that when you approach a general authority and mention Joseph Smith, many will currently get a hunched look, and start muttering something about how he was an imperfect man. At least that has been my experience as I’ve talked with the general authorities who have come to my congregation.
Everyone is imperfect. As was Joseph. But when most Mormons admit Joseph was “imperfect,” they mean that he slept with more women than God wanted and did so behind Emma’s back. That is the “imperfect” that I reject for Joseph Smith.
Ms. Stout, congrats! I look forward to reading this new presentation of the envidence. I also appreciate your explication of how you meant “imperfect.” I don’t see Joseph as being any more deeply flawed than any other, and a lot less than most. But I also like my heroes to have some imperfections or there’s no hope for the likes of me.
I liked Mr. Cluff’s allegory, very applicable.
Bookslinger – I’m right there with you.
Meg, I guess I’ve had a different experience with General Authorities than you. In talking about Joseph’s imperfections, polygamy tends to be less of an issue. In fact, the story most often used in conjunction with Joseph’s imperfection is the loss of the 116 pages of the BoM manuscript.
IIRC, during General Conference, one of them mentioned Joseph and his counselors being chastised by the Lord for not correcting their children – a sign of imperfection.
Hi ram,
I’m specifically talking about the way I’ve seen folks act since November 2014. I believe that you are looking back over a longer period of time.
Knowing Brother Joseph
or
What is Known Should Not Forever Be at the Mercy of What Cannot Be Known
Meg:
If it is true that the GAs are all hunched up about Joseph, that is the most distressing thing I have read on any blog for a long time, and I read most of the Mormon ones and they can get distressing. We ought to pray for them. And pray hard.
I read the ARC and enjoyed it tremendously. I am not sure what is true about the goings on in Nauvoo. But there is something I do know that helps me.
Everything about Joseph’s life, and doings, is/are not available for examination. But some are; these include the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Books of Abraham and Moses, and the ordinances that he restored including those of the Temple. These the Mormons are urged to examine (and we don’t mind having others do the same). These we tend not to want to examine much, but maybe we could start by making some observations about them.
They are wonderful.
They are not the products of a wicked man. Nor are they, when considered, much like anything else. Joseph’s gifts to us occupy a category of phenomena that one struggles to find other examples of (there aren’t many, and those who are examples are in a category called “prophets”). And, again, these things were not done in secret. They are right here for us to look at as much as we want to. I have read no good explanation of them, even Joseph’s own explanation is an apology more than anything. He didn’t know what happened either.
They appeared. Angels and all the rest, and now here they are. Mormon scripture is a public miracle, not any less of a miracle than raising a dead man on Good Morning America, or walking on the water during the Olympic Games. Read them as often as you wish: they keep not going away. Go to the temple as often as you like, it is still there to be marveled at.
It seems strange to me that with all of this very public, very permanent, very available prophetic tour-de-force (they are in print! Still!), we all would prefer to render judgement on the prophet based upon the not public, past and passed, unavailable, and therefore incompletely examinable (i.e. “history”).
Why do humans do that? It would be more straightforward to give him a (well earned) break. Oliver Cowdery made this mistake: he thought that he was a peer of the prophet and therefore able to judge him fully. He wasn’t, he couldn’t, and he finally figured that out. OC could not write a verse of scripture. I have never have either. A man who can produce the things Joseph could produce requires me to stay my judgement. My guess is that whatever it was that happened – like the Book of Mormon – might not be totally comprehensible to me, but is very likely to be a God Thing. Because the things Joseph did that I can fully evaluate are God Things.
Lets not hunch over. Lets say something like: what is known should not forever be a the mercy of what can never be known. Rather, let us allow what we know to guide, inform, condition our understanding of what can never be known.
Let’s try that, okay Mormons?
And Meg. You are great and thanks for trusting Joseph. It is a solid bet, just based on the other things he was able to do.
I’ve been making my way through the Doctrine and Covenants for the first time since becoming acquainted with Meg’s Faithful Joseph series, and it’s really made a tremendous difference, made it more real, etc. And I’ve gained a brighter testimony of its miraculousness like Mark A Clifford discussed.
I’m glad Meg has had the ‘gift’ of passion for this topic. It’s true that it doesn’t settle some questions, but it really has opened a new way of seeing things, like Ken
Cluff said. And I think it makes it easier for the rest of us, who don’t have the same ‘gift’ of persistence on this topic, to set the doubts aside, having realized a broader range of possibilities, and get back to appreciating the more standard (and miraculous) fruits of Joseph’s ministry.
Also, I’m not upset with anyone who just can’t get past Joseph’s polygamy. I tend to agree with Mark that they should probably try investigating what is known, but I understand why that might feel less satisfying. I think it has to do with how the Spirit speaks to individuals, and we tend to want to have a consensus that is more broadly felt, more validated, less subject to continual renewal with all the energy and time-investment required.
Frankly, I think it is part of the miracle that so many people in this time of prosperity, which typically precipitates ingratitude and spiritual inattentiveness, have resisted that and are so energetic in keeping their testimonies strong.
One of perspectives most valuable to me from Meg’s book was that of the motivations for forming the early Relief Society. Emma Smith and her fellow sister’s desire to heal and protect the women preyed upon by Bennet and others was deeply touching. As a member of Relief Society today, I feel a responsibility to defend and protect the innocent, to fight social ills and to do good for women on a wide stage. I haven’t stopped thinking about The Reluctant Polygamist since I read it.
For those of you who have read the book, feel free to post a review at Amazon.com. Right now the only review is from an account that was apparently created specifically to post a one star review, damning the book as fiction that no credible historian agrees with.