This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Latter Day Saint polygamy in the late-19th century article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
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.
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)
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)
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—Forcible "Sealing"—Extraordinary Proceedings of a Probate Court—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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Latter Day Saint polygamy in the late-19th century article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
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.
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)
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)
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—Forcible "Sealing"—Extraordinary Proceedings of a Probate Court—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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)