Brian,
testimony is authoritative, but again it is quite late. I didn’t
find much evidence of this doctrine at the time of Joseph
Smith, but many things weren’t known then like now. I don’t
know if this type of evidence is available (I suspect not or you
would likely have used it), but I can see that our critics can
more easily explain away JAW as an apologist, than dealing
with the statements and practices of the early brethren. I
suspect JAW may have had access to some data or people
that taught him these things, but unfortunately he doesn’t
elaborate on why he makes the points he does. I’m arguing
for more evidence on this very crucial point. I had similar
impressions a time or two in other areas of this and the next
chapter, but without taking the time to review them again, I
can’t give you specifics. Maybe I can later when I can read it
carefully.
Just wanted to let you know the books you sent arrived
yesterday. Thank you very much. I took a couple of hours
yesterday and this morning to look over the book on
polygamy, the footnotes, and skim read the three chapters on
polyandry and the chapter on Joseph Smith’s Theology of
Sexuality. I have a few impressions that may or may not be
useful to you.
First, I’ve long thought that one of our best defenses
concerns the teachings and attitude of JS about marriage and
sexuality. If he had a monumental libido which he couldn’t
control as Brodie and other opponents would suggest, then
he was an arch hypocrite of the worst sort vis-à-vis his
statements on adultery which you have collected in your
chapter. I also think that you only find reverence and
sensitivity regarding sex and marriage, nothing crude,
obscene, offensive, off colored, or chauvinistic in his
statements or conduct. That needs to be documented too.
(I’m not suggesting you put it in your chapter, but it is an
avenue which I think needs further exploration.) His brother
William, on the other hand while editing The Wasp did put
crudities in a published public newspaper. Although one gets
the impression from some of Joseph’s comments in his letters
to Emma that theirs was something of a platonic relationship
via letters and may be suggestive of either a coolness in the
relationship, or a reticence or inability on his part to be more
demonstrative—one does not pick up anything untoward
about sex or marriage in those communications either.
Despite his marital problems in the late Nauvoo period, I
don’t recall any negative statements about Emma or
marriage. About the worst I remember is his statement to
Clayton that he feared Emma would “pitch on him” and
request a divorce.
I also had a question about the organization of the first and
second chapters. It seems to me that you jump right in with
the problem of polyandry and an examination of some of the
issues, especially children and paternity, without laying a
foundation of the history that leads up to the issue. One only
encounters the 11 possible polyandrous wives in chapter 8.
I also think that if we are going to effectively deal with this
subject, much more research needs to be done on the
husbands particularly, and their marriages and relationships
with these women. I suspect this may give us a better
context in which to understand this phenomenon. You assess
each of the alleged “children” of Joseph, and I think a similar
thing would be beneficial on the husbands, and that should
precede a discussion about children. So my suggested
taxonomy would be something like this: Joseph and 11
polyandrous wives; the husbands; then the children.
I also felt there were some abrupt transitions between some
sections. I will have to just alert you to this now and provide
specifics later if possible.
Regarding the polyandry chapters I have impressions, but
since I didn’t read them carefully I can’t be too specific just
yet. Two overall reactions. First, I’m amazed at the amount
of detail that continues to be gathered since my study over
30 years ago. You have read a ton and are aware of many
things which I did not know about. It almost makes me wish I
were 30 years younger and could continue to research and
write about the subject.
Finally, I have written a couple of articles which I didn’t see in
the footnotes which may be of some interest and further help
to you. They are:
DWB, “The Authorship of Doctrine and Covenants, Section
132,” The Eighth Annual Sidney B. Sperry Symposium: A
Sesquicentennial Look At Church History, 26 January 1980,
(Provo: BYU Religious Instruction and CES), pp. 27-44. [This
argues against the RLDS position that BY made up 132 and
added it to the D&C. I try to show the evidence for Joseph’s
authorship and knowledge of it at the time, including a
reading by Hyurm to the Nauvoo High Council. Most of this
was in my thesis.]
Second, and I’ll struggle for words here because the idea is a
bit nebulous in my thinking at the moment. It seems to be a
combination of two things. You sometimes begin a section
on a problem or an idea and quote some authority and then
seem to assume that position without what I might consider
adequate substantiation. The thought first occurred to me on
page 41 with the long quotation by Widtsoe on the difference
between time and eternal marriages. While I believe this
may be part of the answer to the problem, as you seem to do,
I think it would be helpful to find earlier sources than JAW to
show that this was what was being practiced. The JFS
DWB, “The Eternity of the Marriage Relationship,” in John
Scott and John K. Challis, Riches Of Eternity: 12 Fundamental
Doctrines From The Doctrine And Covenants, (SLC: Aspen
Books 1993), pp. 195-221. [In this one I tried to document
what I knew about the origin of some of the doctrines
1
associated with eternal marriage, what scholars might call a
piece of “intellectual history”. I also deal with doctrines and
ideas that were reflected in the early marriages performed by
Joseph Smith. Much of this was not in my thesis.]
I hope some of this may be helpful to you. I admire your
effort and ability.
Dan Bachman
2