For over a year, there have been those requesting a copy of my Faithful Joseph series in book form.

On November 30, the advanced review copy (ARC) will be available. ARCs are usually extremely close to final form. In this case, I invite critical and substantive review and will make modifications to the final version where warranted. A dedicated website has been created to foster open discussion of any critiques.

The ARC will be available in at least three formats: Paperback, Kindle book, and pdf file.

Copies of the ARC will be available at cost through the end of January. Reviewers will have through the end of March to make comments they wish to see addressed in the final version. The release date for the final version will be announced the first week of April.

Why the new title? Why bother with an ARC? How is this different from the Faithful Joseph posts?

New Title

When I decided to call my series on polygamy “A Faithful Joseph,” I wanted my title to convey the idea that Joseph Smith might have been physically faithful to Emma. I had no idea how virulent the reaction would be from some, or how often I would be attacked by those who stopped reading after those three words. Perhaps some day I’ll bother counting the number of times people have assumed that I require that Joseph remained physically faithful, or the times I’ve been told my faith is brittle and would shatter if proof emerged that Joseph indeed had sex with one or more of his plural wives.

I knew I wanted to lose the Faithful Joseph moniker. So I reached out to a small focus group. Reluctant Polygamist quickly became the group favorite.

Why an ARC?

It’s typical these days for people to launch a book project using something like KickStarter. The thing is that I don’t need the money a KickStarter campaign usually “earns” for the project.

What I do want is feedback.

So rather than spending time putting together a fundraising campaign and video and “prizes” and waiting for a couple of months for project approval, I’m just putting the ARC out there.

Is there an assertion I make that you want to see documented? Say so. Is there a favorite pit of nasty that has always cankered your soul, that you don’t see me take on? Say so.

This review copy will have line numbers so you can pin point anything that causes you to want to comment. As mentioned, I have set up a dedicated website where such feedback can be discussed.

Better Facts, Less Fiction

When I began my Faithful Joseph posts, I merely hoped to lay before the public a plausible alternative to the standard polygamy narrative, which features a Joseph Smith who delighted in gathering women to his heart and to his bed. My research had convinced me that Joseph was not nearly as active, sexually, as most presume. But until 2013, I had despaired of ever being able to produce a historical treatment, and had decided that a well-written fiction would have to suffice.

In 2013 I was delighted to find Brian Hales’ extensive writings, which at least put forward a Joseph Smith that was likely honorable. But much as I respect Brian’s work, his views do not perfectly reflect my views on the subject. However, I still figured I would just be putting forward a plausible alternative to a few points, with the bulk of my effort directed towards the well-written fiction I still planned to write.

In December 2013 when I began writing my Faithful Joseph posts, I would sometimes include sections that referred to the backstory for my planned fiction. Even though I was often referring to factual situations, my language choices persuaded many that I was just making all this stuff up. Some have gone on record criticizing my writings. This is a disservice to honorable researchers who are merely insufficiently informed and tricked by my language choices into attacking facts as fiction.

In addition to initially casting some things as speculative backstory, I didn’t have the benefit of the additional learning I obtained from December 2013 to now. In 2013 I hadn’t read the Nauvoo High Council Minutes. I hadn’t read the women’s testimonies of 1842 regarding how they’d been seduced to participate in illicit intercourse. Specifically, I hadn’t read Catherine Laur’s testimony, placing Bennett’s initial seduction as occurring prior to mid-July of 1841. Some of the initial speculation I had included in my early Faithful Joseph posts was therefore proven to be wrong, though the overarching thesis remained undisturbed and even strengthened as the facts rolled in.

So It’s Just a Factual History?

I do not say that all supposition is gone. There always remains a need to suggest the way the facts ought best be connected. All researchers do this when facts are insufficient to support an unambiguous conclusion, saying things like:

“One obvious advantage to such a modus operandi was that it would preserve the secrecy of their polyandrous union.” Compton, Sacred Loneliness, p. 213

“Perhaps, as Lucy Walker Smith Kimball said, one restraint to fathering plural children was the ‘hazardous life [Smith] lived[,] in constant fear of being betrayed.'” G. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy, p. 228

“Perhaps feeling he had the upper hand now with the anti-Mormons in the county behind him, Foster wrote what Clayton called ‘a very saucy letter,’ refusing to deal with Joseph and his ‘unworthy, unprincipled, Clan.'” Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p. 540

“Undoubtedly the Prophet was conflicted over his plural marriages and Emma’s non-participation and uninformed state.” Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: Towards a Better Understanding, p. 76

“The lamentable mishap was presumably a polite way of referring to Bennett’s adulterous behavior.” A. Smith, The Saintly Scoundrel, p. 140

In similar fashion Reluctant Polygamist will put forward a consistent paradigm, with “perhaps,” “could,” and “presumably” peppering the text as required to show where a logical deduction has occurred.

What about Peer Review?

One criticism that has been levied against me is that I have not submitted my work for critical review.

I will be submitting articles to the historical journals. However the historians I have talked to suggest that an entire book length treatment of a subject such as this is not the kind of thing any historical society wants dumped on their front step. Articles that are roughly 30 pages are about the limit for a historical journal.

In roughly 10 years I hope to have a string of articles that will have been found worthy of publication in historical journals, journals read by a small population. In the meantime I see no reason in our modern age to allow myself to be muzzled.

In an age when the nature of marriage, and even need for marriage, is fundamentally in question, it behooves us to look with open eyes at the origin of our marriage practices. It is my hope that Reluctant Polygamist can stimulate the kind of discussion that is needed in our age to understand the New and Everlasting Covenant and the sacrifices required of us to obey this law.